Started by Joel P. Shempert, April 06, 2008, 03:03:00 AM
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on April 06, 2008, 12:20:24 PMI found it funny when yo wrote, "My pitch was basically, "three factions in conflict, pick from them and go at it!" and envisioned a disparate group all converging on the same location with possible blood opera ensuing." I mean, that's sort of like "anti-party play" where the GM has as strong an expectation of the Players not having their characters be cooperative for the game to work well as a lot of GM have a strong expectation that the Players better party-up for a game to work well.The "there doesn't need to be a party" thing is never about making sure there's blunt conflict within the group. It means that the Players are free to move in and out of alliances within each other. There might be conflict, there might not. This let's the PCs make any darned choice the Players want them to make in terms of actions. Which is the point. It isn't: "Hey, Players, have conflict with each other!" It's, "Okay, guys, given that you can go any direction you want, which direction will you go?"
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on April 06, 2008, 12:20:24 PMIn my view, you had the opportunity for cool story stuff from the choices of your players as well. But you got caught up in your expectations of what you were expecting the players to do (the "right" thing for the players to do!) even before they got a chance to take action. And that's not where we're allowed to go with this stuff!
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on April 06, 2008, 12:20:24 PMAnd a separate issue. You referred to stakes in your description -- as in "If this happens, then this; and if this happens then this." I don't think TSoY is played with those kinds of stakes. I believe the game is best played with "I attempt to do this," rattle-rattle, "Okay, here's what happens," and then, "And now I attempt to do this," rattle-rattle, "Okay, here's what happens," and then, "And now I attempt to do this," rattle-rattle, "Okay, here's what happens," and so on, till resolution is reached. I'm no expert on TSoY, but having read it and read about it, I believe, like Dogs, Sorcerer, (and in my view, PtA), it is best served by having the Players state active intentions for the PCs ("I'm gonnat try to confuse him"), with specific descriptions ("Insert color details here") and roll dice, and then decide and narrate results after the dice determine which way the narration should go, combined with the color details to inform the narration.
Quote from: the TSoY WikiFirst, the player states the character's intention and the Story Guide sets the stakes. This should be easy: "Pieter is going to try to climb that boulder" is a good example. The Story Guide could reply "If you succeed, Pieter's over the rock," but that's pretty implicit. Usually, the results of success are easily taken from the what the player said. The results of failure are determined by the Story Guide and players. In this case, failure could mean Pieter's not over the rock or it could mean something worse. The Story Guide has free reign here to say, "That's a giant boulder. If you fail, Pieter falls and will break a bone." What's important is that these stakes are stated up front.
Quote from: Willem on April 06, 2008, 05:58:00 PMEverytime I could, I avoided conflict, and when it came up, I chose compassion over conflict avoidance, but the situation rarely came up. Meanwhile the other warrior elf gained XP every combat round. I pursued my keys as best I could, but I felt like I had entered the wrong story for my character. I had a hard time finding his place, and couldn't feel anything to push against
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on April 06, 2008, 07:59:54 PMWhen you wrote, "you can regard "the Party" as a red herring if you like..." Maybe. I don't know. I would look more at what you're seeing as passivity and such. Active play can occur whether or not the PCs are working alongside each other, so I don't think thinking in terms of party is going to help much. The question are how can you help your players become more engaged in play. I'm just suggesting that the "party" issue might not be the symptom that needs to be addressed.
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on April 07, 2008, 12:31:35 PMA young man who arrived at at PtA game[SNIP]So, that's really the key for me. I try to rummage around and dig out things for the character sheets that I'm pretty sure the Players are interested in. And then I address those things. What's established SOCIALLY is more important than what I arrive with alone, if that makes any sense. And it seems to be working out pretty well.
Quote from: elegua on April 07, 2008, 01:35:57 PMPetrea's character was the next best fit for intrinsic plot hooks, but nobody at the table really understood what she wanted. It seemed pretty clear from my seat that she wasn't comfortable creating her own story in the game. I don't think she was familiar enough with the style of game. I could speculate all sorts of reasons for this. My take is that learning to encourage folks like this to be more active in creating a dynamic character should be a focus of the community, particularly those who are trying to initiate new members.
Quote from: elegua on April 07, 2008, 01:35:57 PMNeither of the elf characters seemed to be integrated with the setting at all. Neither of them had links to what was going on locally or any strong feelings about what to do about it. Not only that, but their general character motivations were completely opposite. This had opportunity for conflict, but Brandon was indulged in his bloodlust and Willem didn't find any sort of groove of interactivity, which is all the more important when you have 3-4 hours to do a complete story arc. This is probably most closely related to Joel's lack of engagement at 9am after short sleep as he just rolled with everything that was happening in character creation and didn't try to get players to build up those ties. I think this is what would have improved this particular session the most.
Quote from: Willem on April 07, 2008, 01:57:43 PMSo, I did all these things to follow the Keys, but I'll admit that I myself never felt that I had any struggle or character discord. I did indeed feel disconnected from the story. It felt like a "following the letter, but not the spirit" of the rules. I suppose in any one of those above instances, another character could have made the choice to act (or not) more difficult for me, but I hadn't made an agreement like that between Gilbert's Duvall and Zach's Goblin.
Quote from: MelinglorI'm not trying to marginalize you in the dialogue. Bu all means let's delve into your portion of the game and why it went the way it did.
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on April 07, 2008, 10:42:47 PMNow, the conflict and pressure. Let's say the battle's going really badly. She's providing healing support, but they might get wiped out. Could she even help? I mean, really. If there's this big battle going on, and everyone's dying, and she's one PC, what could she do? I have no idea. Maybe she was staying back at the early stages because she guessed, as seems to be the case, that if she invested too deeply she'd only be investing in a fight that she'd be certain to lose.In other words, what could she do? Where was the ring of power that had to be destroyed? Where was the grail that could heal the Zar's leader who could win the final battle? See this is where you come in. She can't make up the solutions to her own problems. Play and experimentation has proven this is dull. She wants to protect Zar. Fine. You want her engaged in the action on some bigger scale. Great. But give her something to do that will really test her in some larger and concrete manner.