[SS], [TSoY] and "safety net"
Eero Tuovinen:
Go for the critique, Ron, in a new thread or right here as you would. I confess that I'm pretty happy about the SS text myself (or was when I read it last), but even negative critique is a rare treat for smaller rpg endeavours, so I'd be a fool to turn it down. Merely having you consider TSoY/SS as a game makes for exciting reading from my viewpoint. Marketing is not an issue, it'd be entirely immature idea to pretend that I've somehow written the first flawless game ever.
Also, you guys have to let me know if I come off as drowning conversation with blathering. It's pretty much the way I roll in written word, but again - critique, or it's not going to get fixed ever.
Paolo D.:
Hi guys,
know I might be ready with some more thoughts to post, and maybe with a couple of questions on Eero's last "big post" too.
However: Ron, Eero, tell me if you prefer to see posted Ron's critiques before, I don't want to put too much discussion material at the same time.
Eero Tuovinen:
If I had to guess, Ron's take probably deserves its own thread altogether. Besides, we have a good thing going here, Paolo, so go ahead if you have something to add.
Paolo D.:
Ok, so let's go. (Ron, I think that you should open another thread for your critiques, they could deserve a "place" on their own)
Quote
One reason for why I discuss the above specific procedural points in such detail is that I wanted to address Paolo's point about group veto in DitV: aside from the fact that this group veto obviously exists in all games (Lumpley Principle, it's called) and should be used to cut through break-ups in creative communication, I'd like to emphasize that the SS text at least tries to communicate the notion that joint creative cohesion of the group is definitely to be upheld by two inter-related forces: on the one hand there is the genuine creative communication within the group that happens moment to moment and legitimizes anything done in the game, and on the other there is the Story Guide, a specific player who has been set aside largely so there is one specific person whose task it is to view the proceedings from the outside and verbalize the group's collective standards.
That's something that doesn't convince me in this part of your post.
You are saying that the Story Guide is here to verbalize the group collective standards, to "represent" the aesthetic of the group. And that's ok, I totally agree with that.
But, you (and the SS manual too, I think) don't say how (how = with which criterion).
For example, in DitV (page 77-78 of the english edition):
"As GM, you should always follow your group's lead. A big part of your job in the first couple of sessions is to figure out, mostly by observation, your group's standards for legit Raise and Sees, invoking traits, valid stakes, using ceremony, the supernatural, and so on."
Note: since here, it's very much like what you describe as the task of the Story Guide in the SS: to represent the group collective standards.
But, DitV's game text goes on:
"However, the thing to observe in play isn't what the group's doing, but instead who's dissatisfied with what the group's doing. The player who frowns and uses withdrawing body language in response to someone else's Raise, or who's like ""that's weak" when someone reaches the dice - that's the player whose lead to follow. Everyone's Raises etc. should come to meet the most critical player's standards. As GM, it's your special responsability to pay attention, figure out what those standards are, and to press the group to live up to them."
...and that was the criterion to follow. For the GM, to represent the group's standard, in practice, means to pay attention for the most critical players standards and to press the group for it (and this leads, in practice, to the "veto rule" of DitV).
This is not just the "lumpley Principle", this is a specific procedure of the game that explains to the GM what to do, in practice, to follow the group's standard.
Other games have other procedures about this: in Universalis, there is a bid of tokens (if I remember right); in Bloody Red Sands, there's the Challenge (it's something similar to the veto in DitV, but two players are needed instead of just one). In Shock:, if at least player is excited about something (over whose introduced it), that thing is ok, and if nobody is particularly excited about this AND almost a player is not ok with it, the player whose introduced that thing has to change it.
(I know that these games don't have a traditional GM figure, but I just wanted to make some examples of what I mean as "The way to follow the group's standard, in practice").
So, my question (to myself, but to Eero too) is: in the Solar System, what should the Story Guide do "to represent the group's standard", in practice?
Eero Tuovinen:
That is a totally fair observation, and I agree: the SS text doesn't go into much detail on many specific nuances of Story Guiding. This is largely because I wanted to keep the scope of the text limited, tutorial-like, instead of allowing parts of it like the Story Guiding chapter to expand into independent treatises on their own. Thus there are many places where I say what should be done, but do not explify on how I accomplish these things in detail. Even the Story Guiding chapter is more of a crash course on the duties involved than anything approaching lucid - it does the job for an experienced GM who merely needs to know which of his toolsets to engage for this particular game, and I think it does a reasonable job as an introduction upon which to build from other sources and practice for those who are unfamiliar with this GMing style, but there are definitely things that are left unsaid for simple lack of space.
As for the substantial question, my personal take on how the aesthetics of the group are best represented by the Story Guide is predicated on the idea of interpersonal creative communication being a recognizable social phenomenon. That is, you as a player can look at your co-players and both signal appreciation and recognize such signals while playing, and this in turn directly allows you to keep abreast of how your own and other players' creative input is being appreciated by the other participants. Given this premise (which is really not at all a given in my experience of roleplaying, but which is regardless a necessity for functionally coherent play), we can say that the main way for the Story Guide to enforce the group's collective standards is by ensuring that this appreciation of each other's creative input happens: when a player doesn't seem to be getting it, clarify; when a player is contributing something the others are not getting, ask for clarifications or clarify yourself; when you achieve creative chemistry with somebody, run with it and ensure that the entire group reaps the bounty. Judge all contributions in terms of whether they prove that the contributing player "gets" what you're doing, and approve strongly of any valid input that proves that you're not just talking to the walls when contributing yourself. The specific tool to be used as a Story Guide in enforcing and encouraging this build-up of collective standards is mostly the SG's chairmanning role: you basically decide who gets to talk at the table and what we're talking about moment to moment, so you have great, largely unmechanized power to exercise in this regard.
I don't consider the above to pertain very strongly to the unique conditions of playing Solar System, note - it's entirely fair to say that the above is how I play DitV or PTA or Mountain Witch or Dust Devils, too. Achieving creative coherence is such a basic task that it is probably better to build personal skills for it more than game-specific methods. This is also the spirit in which I read Vincent's take on the topic in DitV: while he writes in the context of DitV, this GMing tip is only one of several that are really more about generally applicable skills than the specific conditions imposed by DitV. Definitely good stuff to include in a game text even if I myself opted to limit myself in SS mostly to game-specific material.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page