Split the party.
oculusverit:
Hello everyone,
I have to admit I have read a lot of different posts and been familiar with Ron's theories for quite some time, but I have never posted to the Forge yet. I was writing to see if anyone has any thoughts on the following.
I have been a GM for about 6 years, and I have to admit I like games with GM's (even if they are GM-light). Personal preference. So with that in mind...
Considering the great adventures in fiction, a certain pattern develops. A group of adventurers (the Fellowship of the Ring, for example, or the Stark family in A Song of Ice and Fire, or the wizard students in Harry Potter) start out together, usually from a point of innocence (read: low experience). After a number of adventures together, however, a point of trauma develops that splits the party. Each adventurer, who has proven strong in certain areas, must now accomplish separate goals and meet new people. This accomplishes two goals story-wise--it allows each adventurer to prove their worth as a leader rather than always fitting the same role in every adventure, and it allows the audience (the reader, in the case of fiction, but for the sake of the analogy I will paint the gaming group with GM included as audience) to explore the rich fantasy world in different areas at once.
All mainstream games, and most indie ones, however, assume that the group of protagonists either gets to interact with each other (PCs) or characters portrayed by the GM whose responsibility it is to bring the entire rest of the world to life. This includes antagonists, allies, neutral parties, bystanders, etc. In my time running these mainstream games, I've encountered several instances where I have wanted to either explore the world or help character development by splitting the party, but it invariably ends with me having to provide most of the interaction for one or two players while the rest of the group sits by, watching or using the time to go to the bathroom.
I think it would provide a better experience if players could take on the roles of the new allies or even the new antagonists encountered in these episodes where the party is split. This way everyone would feel involved, and maybe even have a chance to branch out into new roles. Are there any games that do this already? If so, what are they? And if they exist, do they provide a GM (even GM-light) experience, or would they be considered "way out there" in terms of style of roleplay to mainstream players?
jdfristrom:
I was in a game last week where the gm did exactly that - told the players who weren't in the scene to play the parts of npc's. I'd never seen that done before and it was fantastic. (having the one woman player playing all the female npc's helped the illusion too.). But it was a homebrew system of the gm's, so no help there. Still, I don't see why you couldn't do it with any system.
Moreno R.:
Hi oculusverit (? can I call you with a normal name? At the Forge there is the tradition of using our first name as user-name or in the signature)
What you are asking for is problematic and more than a little contradictory: you want to play games where the character have to work together as a group (when a lot of indie games did throw out the concept of the "party" a long time ago), and then you want to split them up at the time of your choice. This would (and will) require railroading, and a lot of it (or at least a lot of illusionist techniques). And, as you saw yourself, doesn't work very well.
I suggest that you simply use games that doesn't assume that the PC will for a fixed "party", and avoid this contradiction. And let the players decide when they want their character to travel together or split up, without forcing the choice to mimic some other story that isn't the one you are playing.
Talking about techniques, these are a few to allow the players to avoid being "out of the action" for too long even if their PC are not together:
- "Troupe Play": this was introduced by the game "Ars Magica" in 1987: to tell it simply, in every scene where you don't play a PC, you play a NPC. The setting of the game and the way the characters are build help in this (every player play a Magus with lots of bodyguards and servants that the other players can play when their Magus is not in a scene), it could be more difficult in a game where the PC are "lone wolfs" that often travel alone.
- Games where the PC are not in any "party", Frame aggressively, short scene, right to the point, and this work very well, Hundreds of games now work this way, even with a fixed GM. So allow the players not present in a scene to help (or hinder) in some way, to encourage participation in each other's scene.
There are other techniques, based on messing with the character ownership, but they are usually used with a less traditional split between Players and GMs.
-
Aetius:
Hi.
Quote from: Moreno R. on July 06, 2010, 04:08:53 PM
What you are asking for is problematic and more than a little contradictory: you want to play games where the character have to work together as a group (when a lot of indie games did throw out the concept of the "party" a long time ago), and then you want to split them up at the time of your choice. This would (and will) require railroading, and a lot of it (or at least a lot of illusionist techniques). And, as you saw yourself, doesn't work very well.
Why, Moreno?
I can imagine a game that simulate this dividing the play in two parts, with the passage activated by some kind of pre-declared mechanic: "When the Trust Track reaches 0 the party will split" or "When a character resolve his Contradiction the party split" (Trust and Contradiction being stats of these hypothetical games). That event can be more or less player driven... a sort of end game mechanics in the middle of the game, or a passage like the one in Polaris.
Obviously, the literary topos of the "splitting party" can be used in a lot of game, from The Mountain Witch to Solar System, without forcing it and using it only if it's really necessary and cool. We can even play a lot of games STARTING with a split party: we pitch and assume that the characters know each other well, but we are really interested only in what they do after they part, not in their previous adventures.
What I fail to understand is why this topos cannot be a feature or even the focal point of a fully coherent game like many other topoi and what are the problems with a game that force it as a matter of design.
Think about Polaris. "The fallen knight" is a time-honored cliché and is central to the game. You cannot avoid the fallen, it's an essential part of the game.
Why we cannot use "The splitting party" in the same fashion?
Moreno R.:
Quote from: Aetius on July 06, 2010, 05:11:44 PM
Why, Moreno?
Because what you are talking about is not what "oculusverit" was talking about
Quoting:
Quote from: oculusverit
All mainstream games, and most indie ones, however, assume that the group of protagonists either gets to interact with each other (PCs) or characters portrayed by the GM whose responsibility it is to bring the entire rest of the world to life. This includes antagonists, allies, neutral parties, bystanders, etc. In my time running these mainstream games, I've encountered several instances where I have wanted to either explore the world or help character development by splitting the party, but it invariably ends with me having to provide most of the interaction for one or two players while the rest of the group sits by, watching or using the time to go to the bathroom.
Anyway, this is his thread and he will say if he could be interested in a solution like the one you prospect.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page