Does chance favour a good story?
Unforgivingmuse:
I've been game-mastering and writing games for rather longer than I care to mention, and I like to think I've got a handle on most things. I like to think I can predict what most of the player characters are likely to do in a given situation, but I still get caught out occasionally. Not often but it is almost invariably when the players, or even just one gets a sudden burst of overconfidence against odds that they should have them running in the opposite direction, and rather than being decimated they have a run of luck that I wish I had when choosing the weekly lottery numbers.
In my system narrative is king, and it says something that all my players (playtesters), bar one are experienced game-masters themselves. But even with that experience this issue still crops up once in a blue moon, and the effect can often have serious ramifications to the plotlines.
I realise that rpgs are generally intended to allow for this kind of non-linear turn of events, and when it happens I'm certainly grown-up enough to take it in my stride, and re-write any plot arcs that have been messed up as a result, indeed often interesting sub-plots can result from such events.
What I worry about is the question of whether I encouraged it to happen? I don't think the player gets so frustrated that they felt the character's suicidal charge was necessary to break the monotony, quite the opposite.Whilst it might sound like I'm ducking some sort of responsibility in my GMing, it is interesting to note that the player characters who this tends to happen with are exactly the kind of have-at-ye characters that take on these kind of odds in stories. Could it be that with a strongly narrative style of game that this sort of thing is inevitable; that experienced players get so tuned into their characters, that they will push themselves (and possibly all their companions) towards certain death, simply because that character would in a story? And that somehow, chance seems to encourage it.
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Unforgiving Muse,
Can you give us more context about what game system you're using and a bit about the group? Also, do you stick strictly to the rules of the system or do you fudge them?
I've found in games where players see fudging, sometimes it can be confusing what encounters are impossible vs. what encounters are expected to be taken on.
Also, if the players are mostly familiar with stuff like D&D 3.0 or later, those games are built to always balance encounters, so players from that background don't expect "impossible challenges".
Chris
Unforgivingmuse:
Hi Chris,
The system is called Tefr, it is a percentile/skills based system with an emphasis on narrative roleplaying. This tends to put less focus on game/ruleplay and more on descriptive and character interaction. I'm being good and doing my time here on the actual play strand, before calling for feedback on the system itself.
Do I fudge the rules? that's a bit like asking a lady her age. The answer is yes, if it makes the narrative work better. I'll go right off the page if it makes for a good story, but I rarely need to.
I'm not sure if there is any issue over confusion; an army is an army, an uber-mage is an uber-mage. The players know enough of the world to know that fire burns, and if it is an entirely new encounter with something of unknown power I will never make it impossible.
Big nasty things are there to round out the story and give it an epic feel not slaughter everyone. Look, but don't touch.
I was speculating that it could be a case of roleplaying too well, insofar as the character would accept that the odds will most likely kill them, and the player plays them that way despite their own better judgement.
Simon
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Unforgivingmuse,
Quote
I'm not sure if there is any issue over confusion; an army is an army, an uber-mage is an uber-mage. The players know enough of the world to know that fire burns, and if it is an entirely new encounter with something of unknown power I will never make it impossible.
Well, here's the thing about playing games where there's a story the GM is aiming for AND fudging - the direct in-game fiction sometimes take a back seat to the non-verbal cues (real or perceived) over what you imagine the GM is trying to direct you towards, and players who are used to this kind of play can fall into it a lot.
How long has your group been together? Have you played together a lot? How long have they been playing Tefr? What's the general age range of everyone involved? What's the background on previous games played?
Chris
Roger:
Quote from: Unforgivingmuse on March 09, 2011, 11:33:08 AM
In my system narrative is king, and it says something that all my players (playtesters), bar one are experienced game-masters themselves. But even with that experience this issue still crops up once in a blue moon, and the effect can often have serious ramifications to the plotlines. I realise that rpgs are generally intended to allow for this kind of non-linear turn of events, and when it happens I'm certainly grown-up enough to take it in my stride, and re-write any plot arcs that have been messed up as a result, indeed often interesting sub-plots can result from such events.
For my own clarification, do you mean that:
1. As the GM of your "narrative is king" system, that you author the plotlines?
2. That you "re-write any plot arcs that have been messed up as a result" of your players' actions?
3. That you occasionally incorporate "interesting sub-plots" that arise from your players' actions?
I'm not trying to hound you here -- I just want to be sure that I fully understand what you're saying. If, in the spirit of Actual Play, you could expand on your example of the characters' surprisingly-non-suicidal charge, especially in respect to what your original plotline was and what your re-write of the plot arc looked like, I would certainly appreciate it.
Cheers,
Roger
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page