[The Eye in the Pyramid] Bananites
jenskot:
Quote from: David Berg on January 26, 2011, 01:11:47 PM
I also really wonder what would have happened if someone had GMed twice and someone hadn't GMed at all. The group was very clearly against that, but I wasn't sure why.
A combination of reasons:
- GMing is very improv oriented in this game and requires a lot of energy
- You also have a character, GMing more means playing your character less and less making up crazy connections which is fun
- Since we had 4 scenes, if anyone GMed more than once, that means someone misses their chance to GM
jenskot:
I had fun GMing.
The GM order you describe above is correct.
My scene ended with the players driving to Staten Island which worked well with the next Scene.
When I was GMing... even when I wasn't... but especially when I was GMing I was eager to push my conspiracy. Not everyone focused 100% on their own conspiracy but they were certainly the priority in each scene. There was no mechanical incentive to do so but I think because we were invested in our own conspiracies... by developing them at the beginning, we wanted to show off the parts we wrote down on out conspiracy sheets. At least I did. I was also more invested in my own conspiracy than the one my character was pursuing. Although I enjoyed both.
I don't remember the transition from scene 1 to scene 2. I think the GMs exhibited some hard core scene framing to get us to the middle of the action... there was almost no transition in many cases but plenty of reincorporation.
GMing felt like major railroading but fun. We were all very giving and saying yes a lot to players' proposed actions but in general, whatever the GM said is what happened. In our actual play this was a non issue so I don't want to speculate too much how that would work in other people's games. That said, I suspect anyone who would find your game and want to play it probably already has the skills to make it work.
David Berg:
Quote from: jenskot on January 26, 2011, 11:15:22 AM
Not so sure parts:
- we didn't use all the info we wrote down about our conspiracies
I think the name and general aim are key. I assume the current goal is vital context for narrating; I'm curious to see what you guys thought, but I bet I'd have a hard time without this.
At least one location and attack seemed vital. Three is probably overkill. But options are good. Maybe two?
My guess is that the steps toward the current goal have the exact same concerns, but I dunno.
As for timing, I could see how creating location, attack and maybe steps might be done right before GMing, rather than pre-game. That would minimize wasted effort. On the other hand, pre-game creation separates them from the other tasks of gearing up to GM, hopefully minimizing creative battery drain. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me either way; what do you think?
I still think defining a symbol and a front are super cool, but I'm fine with those being optional.
I'm curious whether paring this down as I've suggested would have reduced your investment in showcasing your conspiracy.
David Berg:
Quote from: jenskot on January 26, 2011, 01:43:51 PM
I don't remember the transition from scene 1 to scene 2. I think the GMs exhibited some hard core scene framing to get us to the middle of the action... there was almost no transition in many cases but plenty of reincorporation.
I've got no problem with weird scene cuts. What I'm wondering about is the attitude toward the conspiracies. Did we have a, "Wait, it's not just Monsanto, it's really about Ford!" moment? I don't remember one. I would have thought this was really important before our game, but now I'm not so sure.
jenskot:
Quote from: David Berg on January 26, 2011, 01:54:12 PM
Quote from: jenskot on January 26, 2011, 01:43:51 PM
I don't remember the transition from scene 1 to scene 2. I think the GMs exhibited some hard core scene framing to get us to the middle of the action... there was almost no transition in many cases but plenty of reincorporation.
I've got no problem with weird scene cuts. What I'm wondering about is the attitude toward the conspiracies. Did we have a, "Wait, it's not just Monsanto, it's really about Ford!" moment? I don't remember one. I would have thought this was really important before our game, but now I'm not so sure.
From what I remember, there was no... "oh shit... Ford is involved to" feeling. Partially because we had an intro scene via the IRC chat room where we laid out who we thought was involved. Probably the only OMG moment was in the third scene because of how insane the opening was... strapped to tables... marks all over your body where your limbs will be replaced... lady gaga face transplant... drill gun... statue of liberty outside our window... faceless doctors... Mendez's character has a leg transplant... we're all chained down... guards and doctors are coming and... GO!
I also had the advantage of being the 3rd scene. Lots to reincorporate, nothing to introduce or wrap up... just escalate!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page