Started by David Hallett, March 08, 2011, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: David Berg on March 09, 2011, 12:32:02 AMSteve, it's vital to this style of play that players not get to make up what they're investigating. (At least, that's how I feel, and I'm pretty sure Dave feels likewise.)Although, if there was some 100% foolproof way to keep the players from knowing the GM was incorporating their theories, I guess that might have some potential.Dave, I assume that's not what you're going for here, but I mention it in case you're looking for yet more ways to reduce some of the load on the scenario designer.
Quote from: contracycle on March 09, 2011, 01:44:53 AMThe points you make about play (not "story") stalling are valid, but let me offer an alternative point of view. If I found out that the GM was synthesizing my own guesswork into an "answer", I wouldn't just be disapointed, I'd be enraged. If thats how it works then as soon as I've made my character I might as well just say "It was Colonel Mustard in the Drawing Room with the Lead Pipe, The End" and go home; the entire exercise of playing a game would have been a pointless fraud.Yes, the stalling thing is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow, but IMO the cure you propose is worse than the disease.
Quote from: stefoid on March 08, 2011, 05:51:48 PMI got really excited when I read the 'gambling with the facts' box, until I realised that the GM established the facts and the player had to guess what the real facts were. At first I thought the players, in character, could make hypothesis about what the nature of the mystery or parts of it might be, and if the GM decided to take on those hypothesis into the plot, or part of it, the player would get rewarded. What I initially thought you were getting at before I read the text carefully was that the GM laid all these various clues around the place, with no fixed idea as to the true nature of the trouble, and the fun was the players 'creating' the monster themselves with their imaginification, from the various clues they managed to find.
Quote from: stefoid on March 09, 2011, 01:20:08 AMMaybe its because the games where Ive played CoC have been, dysfunctional, but I am scarred by 'investigative style play'.Dave or anyone, can you tell me what functional investigative play looks like?
Quote from: stefoid on March 09, 2011, 01:20:08 AMMy dysfunctional play looks like this:1) something relevant to the characters occurs - (a bang in other words)2) players arrive and investigate the scene looking for clues (invoke task resolution such as 'observe' to notice clues) potential confrontation/conflict may occur.3) players may or may not find clues - potential story stall. 4) players that do find clues then research clues (invoke task resolution such as research to understand clue significance)5) players may or may not research well - potential story stall. 6) assumption: either (2) and/or (4) go well enough to lead to the next investigative scene. rinse and repeat (2)->(6) until case closed.
Quote from: David Hallett on March 09, 2011, 05:06:37 PMheroic deaths over something that really matters are great.
Quote from: David Hallett on March 09, 2011, 05:06:37 PMAs Doom, the way I think of it is that early in the story, the PCs are lucky . . . As the story progresses, however, their luck steadily runs out.
Quote from: David Hallett on March 09, 2011, 05:06:37 PMI agree I don't have the trade-off between Shadow and Insight right yet. It needs to be a real dilemma. How about if making the attempt to increase Insight in itself costs 1 Humanity?