Started by David Berg, October 15, 2011, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on October 20, 2011, 04:29:01 PMAre more structural mechanics something you're open to, or do you also want to preserve the classic paradigm of players playing characters with capabilities described in terms what they can do within a fictional world?
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on October 21, 2011, 08:11:49 PMI think the important thing is to keep player choices and resolution system results either orthogonal to the question of plot progress (e.g. maybe there's mechanical support for having evolving relationships but nothing that affects the character's goal: the Ringbearer is guaranteed to get to Mt. Doom, but the game is about figuring out how the Fellowship feels about each other along the way) or coordinated with it in a way that's fun (e.g. a pacing or level-of-detail mechanic . . . )
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on October 21, 2011, 08:11:49 PMan outline writer generally knows the events in the plot but is open to being surprised by things they find out about the characters or about nuances of how particular scenes play out
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on October 21, 2011, 08:11:49 PMI think generalized conflict mechanics (like with negotiated stakes or whatever) could work too
Quote from: David Berg on October 21, 2011, 02:32:40 PMEarly in my roleplaying career, I tried to use my GM position to tell my stories, and though there were many times when that didn't go so well, there were some times where it went really well for everyone involved. I know I got something unique out of it, and I think the players did too. So I'm convinced that functional possibilities do exist in this direction. How hard they are to design for is another question.Everyone, I'd prefer that we keep the focus on the "designing for" part here in this thread, please.
Quote from: contracycle on October 24, 2011, 05:22:33 AMit would be quite possible to constrain the whole story of "how the ring was brought to Mt Doom" and then leave the decision to throw it in or not to players or system or a mix of both.
Quote from: contracycle on October 24, 2011, 05:22:33 AMOn a similar note, it is possible to do branching plans, but this is usually sub-optimal because it means that some amount of prep will not be used. As such it's quite an inefficient method for someone writing for themselves and their group, but I should mention that this problem goes away when the writer is a third party, providing material to multiple groups.
Quote from: David Berg on October 24, 2011, 03:46:37 AMMy first guess is that "when" is the less important of those two in Story Before. As a matter of fact, I'd like to leave the GM free to generally dictate timing of important fictional developments.
QuoteHmm. I wonder if GM and players could agree on character limits as part of character creation. Brainstorm:1) Each character gets a Dynamic. The Dynamic is the type of character change the player is most interested in (game comes with list of genre-suitable Dynamics, GM refines further, then players pick?)2) The GM and player discuss the bounds of each Dynamic. How high and low can the character go? Example: Courage. The GM sees problems only if the character gets utterly fearless, but finds total terror compatible with the intended plot, so the limits are set at Very Courageous and Ruled By Terror. The game system then moved the character around within that range.
QuoteDoes that say anything about what the resolution system should resolve? If it's about success of character actions, then it needs to also (directly or indirectly, immediately or eventually) produce changes to the character. But maybe it's not about success of character actions at all.
QuoteMy personal sweet spot would be if I could build a character who's a machine well-suited to the game's agenda and then just play them like a real person. I think designing such a game might be more work than the alternatives, but it'd be super cool.