[3:16] the betrayal of planet Girlfriend
Callan S.:
I think the surgery comparison isn't ridiculous, rather it shows a contrast of priority. I can imagine what manatic means, I think. I'd phrase it that the game session is this important thing were making together and if it flops, then our important thing has flopped! How could saving on prep matter? It either risks a flop, or at best it does nothing to prevent it! What use is that at all if at best it does nothing about what is important!
It's curious being able to walk the line, if I'm at all accurate about the above. I don't share that priority, yet I can feel it and its needs.
My own priority I think is similar or the same as Lance's. The session isn't an important thing. Lance talked about what the people at the table think and feel, and that's the important thing. NO, not what they think and feel about the game! That's what alot of 'session is important!' people will think I mean at this moment. No, the important thing is outside the game entirely - what do they think and feel about life in general, but spoken through the games metaphor? That's the important thing - the game itself is a relatively disposable thing in regards to that. A bit like booster rockets that fall away once they have done their job in launching the main capsule. The booster rocket is nice when it's firing, but it is not an important thing. And if it doesn't fire at all, well it would have been nice if it did, but oh well and atleast we didn't prep for dozens of hours beforehand!
I think alot of roleplayers will still think I'm talking about 'the session is important' because that IS roleplay, for them. Because without that, to them it isn't roleplay and it comes down to "Why don't you play a board game?". Which is an interesting question if you look carefully. Because it makes you assume when they ask it, they aren't playing a board game. Without having provided any evidence to prove that and instead only triggering the sympathetic assumption/trust that they aren't playing a boardgame. That's the very edge of 'the complete package', I'd say.
Also, and Lance might not agree he was showing this, I think his demonstration shows he as GM doesn't own the game by having done lots of prep beforehand. He's in the same position as other players - he rocks up and starts using the system. Which shows no one really owns the game - its virgin territory (or perhaps 'no mans land' might be more apt in 3:16's case). That's probably how it was for most of us on our very first few sessions of roleplaying. That's another benefit of his demonstration, I think, anyway.
Gah, thought I'd be shorter than this. Lance is right about the thread and it should split. But I couldn't think of an actual play account that seemed to fit, without thinking "Am I just bringing that up as an excuse to start a thread, rather than because it fits the issue?".
manatic:
(I think this thread should be moved somewhere else, too. It's not really about the original thread anymore, and the posts are getting long. Judging by your post counts you know the ins and outs of this site, so you probably know where to move it. It's an interesting discussion in itself and one that I feel might be fun to continue.)
Callan, you got the surgery comparison right. And from what your and Lance's posts are saying, priorisation and differing gaming cultures are what we are talking about.
Our group is quite relaxed when it comes to roleplaying, but it's a curious mix. The whole social situation is very closely intertwined with the game itself. While the social event isn't just about the session but also very much about socializing with friends, it still means that the session should be as good as possible. You could easily compare it to having a lot of friends over for a few beers, some food and a film. The point isn't the movie, the food or the beer, but instead seeing your friends. Still, if the movie sucks, the food is awful and the beer warm and watery it will detract a lot from the evening's fun factor.
So from this point of view I talked about board games (good point on the question's wording btw), since that is what we would do if we really wanted to do some gaming and our regular game fell through. If we don't have anything prepped, we'll just settle for playing something that's been prepped already, such as a board game. It fulfils the social need for gaming without risking the improvised rpg session sucking and bringing the night to a "bleh" conclusion.
Now seen against this I think you can understand why I consider the quick game that Lance described as something incomprehensible. I guess our group works with the idea "if you're going to do something, do it right." We have had a lot of non-prep and impromptu games years ago and have gradually come to the conclusion that since we don't have limitless time to spend on rpg/gaming sessions, we'd rather spend the time we have on quality. Our group somewhat values the idea of game owning, but in a positive way. Which is basically saying, that if the GM makes the effort to inspire the players, the players respond in kind. The idea of owning games is one I'd very much like to discuss, since it's one of our group's main points of discussion currently.
As to what Lance said in his post...believe me, having GM'd for 11-12 years I've had quite a few of my games fall flat on their well-prepared faces, so so much for my charmed life. While as a kid that was downright awful, these days it has a lot more meaning. So I have to disagree: I think that if a well-prepared game with a solid and 'reliable' gaming group ends up sucking, it provides a very good start for discussing the reasons why such a surprising thing happened, and as such might end up contributing a lot to the whole group - as failures often do if they're broken down and analyzed.
If a non-prep game ends up sucking, IMO it will just disappoint everyone and possibly make them question why it was played in the first place, instead of board gaming or catching a film. And since it was no-prep, there always was a fairly good chance of it sucking, so it's really not such a surprise as to merit a lot of discussion.
- Mikko (since we're on a first name basis, it felt awkward staying behind a nick)
Lance D. Allen:
I think we've got a lot to say on this topic of prep-less play. If you guys are willing, I'll start another AP thread this evening (Baghdad local time; I work the night shift) where I will attempt to unpack where I'm trying to go, and we can work out what's important here. I'll dab into my recent 3:16 play, as well as my attempts at designing prepless or low-prep games, and how those games played out.
Remember, the idea of the AP forum isn't to avoid theory. It's to ground theory in actual play.
manatic:
Sounds excellent, thanks!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page