Creating Social Situations & Characters
Daniel36:
Quote from: wholeridge on August 26, 2011, 05:27:28 AM
I'd like to challenge the advocates of "talking to the players" to give an example of what such a conversation would look like.
Well, for starters the best time to do so is before you start a new campaign, but if you are already in, it would go something like this:
"So, how did you like the last game? Give me some pointers, what did you like about it and what did you dislike?"
Answers
"So would you guys be willing to try an approach different from blowing things up next time?"
Answers
Roll from there. I mean, there is a certain colour that you like and a certain colour that each player likes, and as long as those colours aren't too far apart, it's fine, but if you have a contradicting colour to what all your players want, you either have to change your own game or ask them if they are willing to try and change.
Brimshack:
If you do wish to push the envelope, and I realize this cuts against prior posts, then I would suggest sticking close to combat and presenting social situations which are both obligatory and closely tied to tactical concerns.
E.g.s
- You have to kill someone. he is in a crowded room, and you don't know who it is. The social interactions involve identifying the target while maintaining secrecy and keeping a tactically sound position.
- Your goal is to protect someone. The fight will occur on someone else's initiative and social interactions go hand in hand with identifying potential threats.
- Four parties are poised for battle. No one party could take them all. Negotiations will determine whether or not the odds will be poor, even, or damned good.
- The party loses and they are prisoners. Luckily, there are factional differences among the enemy. Playing them off against each other through social interaction is the only way out.
No these aren't real specific to DF; it's just what comes to mind when I think of spinning a little role playing for players that are gung-ho for battle
wholeridge:
Quote from: Brimshack on August 27, 2011, 12:56:24 AM
If you do wish to push the envelope, and I realize this cuts against prior posts, then I would suggest sticking close to combat and presenting social situations which are both obligatory and closely tied to tactical concerns.
E.g.s
- You have to kill someone. he is in a crowded room, and you don't know who it is. The social interactions involve identifying the target while maintaining secrecy and keeping a tactically sound position.
- Your goal is to protect someone. The fight will occur on someone else's initiative and social interactions go hand in hand with identifying potential threats.
- Four parties are poised for battle. No one party could take them all. Negotiations will determine whether or not the odds will be poor, even, or damned good.
- The party loses and they are prisoners. Luckily, there are factional differences among the enemy. Playing them off against each other through social interaction is the only way out.
No these aren't real specific to DF; it's just what comes to mind when I think of spinning a little role playing for players that are gung-ho for battle
Those are excellent suggestions for improving the story, and observing player reaction to such situations might well reveal more about what the players want than the players themselves would be able to put into words.
Having said that, I find myself wondering why I so strongly prefer these suggestions to some of the other proposals which have been made. I suspect that this preference results from what I myself want from roleplaying. As a player, I don't want to be part of some conscious conspiracy to create a story. I want to experience a story which exceeds my comprehension. I want to participate in creating that story from a script-less, improvisational "actor stance" (if I understand that term correctly) because that stance provides the most immersive experience of identification with the character.
I don't see any reason why The Dresden Files is an inappropriate choice for someone who wants what I want out of roleplaying, and it saddens me that a group of players has been dissuaded from exploring more interesting Dresden plots.
Ron Edwards:
Hi there,
Finally getting a chance to address this.
To the point of this thread
I have only rarely seen an instance of "Hey everyone, let's talk," resulting in improved play. I don't expect to see it here. What I see based on the limited information is people who really ought to part ways, with "play something else" being a limited or marginal alternative. It's brutally obvious that the group is not committed to what The Dresden Files has to offer, either procedurally or in content. My advice for them to talk is seriously directed toward clearing the air about that, with a maybe 10% proviso that it might work out.
Dan (wholeridge), you asked for an example of what that conversation would look like. I can tell you fairly that it would resemble nothing like the conversations here among people who've agreed to talk about role-playing at an ideas-based level. My best example - which comes from setting up for play, not from deep within a train wreck - can be found in my D&D threads:
Quote
From reading a number of posts here at the Forge over the years, I get the idea that role-players think these discussions need to be encounter groups - ripping the emotions out, revealing long-standing trauma, hugging as they collapse into, at last, honest tears. Maybe it does have to be among role-players, although I don't think so, but it certainly doesn't have to be so among non-role-players.
Let's see ...
Me: OK, there are two main ways we can do this. One is more like a video game, where overcoming the monsters and traps is the point. I'd set up a maze and you guys would try to clear it, win or lose. The characters' personalities are there mainly for fun, but not a big deal. The fighting rules are really cool and part of playing would be to get better at them. The other way is more like writing a script as we go along, where the characters are in a difficult situation and have to make decisions and put their lives on the line about it. Their personalities are therefore a really big deal and you should know, I won't be able to dictate what they do or what they think is important. Oh, and don't forget, they can die in the second kind of play, too.
Christopher: The second way.
Dan. The second way.
And that was it, and that's exactly what happened without fail, and without apparent effort or need to remind ourselves at any point - not one - during play.
Also, to fend off any reader-based projection, no, I did not curl my lip or otherwise imply with my tone or expression that "video game" type play was a lesser thing. I presented the options fairly and said I was willing to do my best as DM either way.
That's from [D&D 3.0/3.5] At long last, a dungeon, the final thread of a several about a D&D 3.0/3.5 game I DM'd a few years ago. The whole thread might be worth visiting because of the "why was it Narrativist" question, related the stuff you're bringing up here.
[b[Making stories[/b]
Dan (wholeridge), I have run into this issue regarding the "conscious conspiracy" before. I think it's a bugaboo worry, based on either accidental or willful mis-reading.
When you say you'd like to participate in making a story (and here I mean, characters' decisions genuinely producing plot) through being deeply immersed in playing your charater, there's nothing in what you're saying which is incompatible with my notion of Narrativist play. The word I've used is "mindful," deliberately not "conscious" because of the latter term's connotation of distancing oneself from the experience.
The issue I've raised, causing much anger, is that such story creation (which is not the only way to produce a story in role-playing) doesn't happen wholly by accident, and does rely on a shared, genuine desire to play in this way. I am not sympathetic to the various reasons this point upsets people. Since I'm not saying everyone has to cross their arms, look serious, and direct their characters like little pawns, and since I think that "playing my character" and "making a great story" are in this case synonyms, there's no reason for anyone to be as upset as they've been.
I've been working up an extensive written response to your points in the Sorcerer thread. I think some of it will address your points here too. Let's 'port it all over to the new thread I'll start when I'm done with that response, which will link back to both older threads.
Best, Ron
wholeridge:
Quote
Me: OK, there are two main ways we can do this. One is more like a video game, where overcoming the monsters and traps is the point. I'd set up a maze and you guys would try to clear it, win or lose. The characters' personalities are there mainly for fun, but not a big deal. The fighting rules are really cool and part of playing would be to get better at them. The other way is more like writing a script as we go along, where the characters are in a difficult situation and have to make decisions and put their lives on the line about it. Their personalities are therefore a really big deal and you should know, I won't be able to dictate what they do or what they think is important. Oh, and don't forget, they can die in the second kind of play, too.
I don't think that I have ever played with any roleplayer who would choose the first alternative. Certain no roleplayer above the age of 15.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 02, 2011, 03:18:54 PM
Dan (wholeridge), I have run into this issue regarding the "conscious conspiracy" before. I think it's a bugaboo worry, based on either accidental or willful mis-reading.
When you say you'd like to participate in making a story (and here I mean, characters' decisions genuinely producing plot) through being deeply immersed in playing your charater, there's nothing in what you're saying which is incompatible with my notion of Narrativist play. The word I've used is "mindful," deliberately not "conscious" because of the latter term's connotation of distancing oneself from the experience.
I suppose that it a matter of degree. Certainly one can be somewhat mindful of metagame considerations while being mostly immersed in one's character, but some of the examples of "good play" that I've seen offered here (for example in the "Zilch" thread) sound to me as though they would be very distanced from experiencing the character.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 02, 2011, 03:18:54 PM
The issue I've raised, causing much anger, is that such story creation (which is not the only way to produce a story in role-playing) doesn't happen wholly by accident, and does rely on a shared, genuine desire to play in this way. I am not sympathetic to the various reasons this point upsets people. Since I'm not saying everyone has to cross their arms, look serious, and direct their characters like little pawns, and since I think that "playing my character" and "making a great story" are in this case synonyms, there's no reason for anyone to be as upset as they've been.
Who was crazy enough to get angry at something like that? "Not wholly by accident" is much too mild a claim to inspire anger in any rational individual. You are one of the most moderate voices on this forum.
Best, Dan (wholeridge)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page