Facilitating Coherent Play and the Shared Agenda
Callan S.:
Rustin, no, that wasn't my suggestion at all. I didn't suggest evaluating and deciding adjustments. If they are not at point X by Y minutes, you cease playing.
It's probably jarringly different. But to quote Albert Einstien "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of consciousness that created them."
FredGarber:
No prob, Callan.
It wasn't quite freeform. Opposed noncombat and combat actions had skill/stats determining a target number, with a Fortune Roll to reach that target.
I allowed a well stated Intent phase statement to earn a bonus (or penalty) to the Fortune roll. After the roll, unsuccessful players got to Narrate the outcomes (my group seemed to accept failure better if they got to narrate someone else's successes along with their own failure).
The unspoken Social Contract included "don't be a jerk," so I didn't really have a problem with people overreaching on the Narration.
Not to fork the thread, but is there an official Glossary Term for "Reverse Illusionism?"
It's like we had a solution for the "Impossible Thing Before Breakfast": Make the GM do a lot of work, some of it bordering on telepathy.
-Fred
Ron Edwards:
Hi Fred,
There is indeed a term: Participationist play, courtesy of Mike Holmes. You can run a search on "participationist" and "participationism" for some really long, really involved, and often baffling threads which eventually produced great results. I most recently wrote about it in detail in [NWOD][VtR] New Game - New Possibilities - New Questions!, which I think is pretty relevant to your question, starting about halfway down the page.
Rustin, one quick point: the discourse and terms at the Forge were developed strictly as a discussion among interested parties and were never intended as an outreach device. You're absolutely right that such a device is needed.
Best, Ron
matthijs:
Rustin, from the examples of what you enjoyed in play, it seems to me that perhaps you're trying to make this campaign do several things at once, which might not be possible.
The tactical gaming with miniatures is something you and your group like. It's based completely on systems that let you get into friendly competition/adversity mode, where everyone is on the same level: You're all controlling the same type of resources, following the same rules etc. Yet, you say you would also like to play in a style where the GM is final arbiter of consequences. These two things don't match.
You and your group seem to have enjoyed making up stuff before the game - but that's, in my experience and opinion, a very different activity from actually playing the game. Unless the things you create before-game actually affect the game (for example, what resources the players can use at specific times, or what adversity they will face), the game can easily fall flat despite great pre-game brainstorming.
Your players are very into WOW, while you're not that fanatic about it. Perhaps this indicates that you have different desires from the D&D game? Your players might want more tactics, more resource management, more encounters, while you're looking for something more/different? If so, you've got some thinking to do.
Erudite:
Quote from: Rustin on December 09, 2008, 10:19:07 AM
My group recently ended its fourth 4e campaign within the last year or so.
I suspect incoherent play caused each attempt to fail. (E.g., People "checking-out" when not spotlighted, lots of talk about WOW, computer use etc..)
This is a tough problem to combat.
One of my most successful techniques I have employed is having players write game recaps and rewarding experience points for doing so. The exp rewarded for the recaps is based on the quality of the recap. This alone has helped keep some players paying attention as there is a tangible reward. And, just pulling one or two players back into the game can disable the others who were not paying attention.
I would recommend finding ways to draw each player back in individually. Typically from what I’ve seen as long as you can keep most of the players focused, the other will follow suit.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page