[D&D3.0] Zac's examples (split)
Abkajud:
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, what do you dislike about social skills as blunt weapons?
I think your idea sounds intriguing; it definitely could be used to give social interaction mechanics a strong "foundation" in the fiction (and thus preventing, say, an Intimidate roll from feeling flat or hollow).
How do you feel about Apocalypse World in this regard? In my experience, asking a player to describe what they'll give if they get X is a good way to ground "Seduce or Manipulate". For that matter, if a PC pulls out a gun and points it at someone, I ask them, "So, what do you want them to do? Are you gonna pull the trigger if they don't comply?" This way, the whole process gets unearthed. Is that the *kind* of thing that you're after? (Pursue it in your own way, mechanically, of course! I'm not trying to discourage you from developing your own idea)
David Berg:
Quote from: Abkajud on November 20, 2011, 01:20:30 PM
Actually... here's a thought: when you and your friends sit down to play Narrativistically, every single toy you put inside the Play Circle can be picked up and played with or used by anybody. If any toys are off limits, that's breaking the rules of the game.
Hmm. I don't see any problem with on person throwing in fictional stuff that no one is allowed to use to address premise. On the other hand, throwing in fictional stuff that only one person is allowed to use to address premise does seem like it might break the togetherness of play.
Just to explore that edge case for a second: If there are a bunch of players separately authoring shit and then taking turns exploring the thematic significance of what they've authored, and acting as audience for each other... Well, it does strike me as something people could do. I doubt that it could be CA-coherent roleplaying, though.
Abkajud:
David, can you give me an AP (or hypothetical play) example of how
1- such a thing could happen
OR
2- such a thing could be communicated effectively, either before play or during play
Thanks!
stefoid:
Quote from: Abkajud on November 21, 2011, 07:55:45 AM
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, what do you dislike about social skills as blunt weapons?
I think your idea sounds intriguing; it definitely could be used to give social interaction mechanics a strong "foundation" in the fiction (and thus preventing, say, an Intimidate roll from feeling flat or hollow).
How do you feel about Apocalypse World in this regard? In my experience, asking a player to describe what they'll give if they get X is a good way to ground "Seduce or Manipulate". For that matter, if a PC pulls out a gun and points it at someone, I ask them, "So, what do you want them to do? Are you gonna pull the trigger if they don't comply?" This way, the whole process gets unearthed. Is that the *kind* of thing that you're after? (Pursue it in your own way, mechanically, of course! I'm not trying to discourage you from developing your own idea)
Youre right, this is a threadjack. Suffice to say that you have a fair idea of where Im coming from given the stuff in your quote above.
Thats what I do at the moment, Im fixated on developing my own game and when I see a thread or post that touches on something Ive spent a lot of time on, I chip in and discuss that. See if I can get any other angles on it.
Like... to get back to the original point of this thread which is (I think) How to give the players room to explore characterization in a scripted sort of game?.
Back to your example - I dont think the onus was on the GM in this situation to back the players move with a dice roll for what seems to be an essentially implausible intent - to get the whores to 'see the light' just because the PC said so. However, that doesnt mean that the whole interaction is a write-off, because I certainly can see a born-again type of character attempting just that kind of thing.
I dont think players neccesesarilyl want to suceed or even the chance to suceed in this type of situation, what they want is for their actions/decisions to matter. And that basically means they have consequences -- good or bad.
The best advice Ive read (and incorporated into my own game :) ) is to respond to PC itnents with two kinds of question - What could go wrong with that ? and What are the possible consequences of that?
So in your example: What could go wrong with that? What are possible consequences of that?
a) the PC could make an enemy of the pimp - trying to run his girls out of business?
b) the whores could turn it back on the PC and demand that she find them alternative employment, cos they have kids to look after etc... -- how far is the PC willing to go to back up her own beliefs?
etc, etc...
stefoid:
Quote from: Abkajud on November 21, 2011, 07:55:45 AM
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, what do you dislike about social skills as blunt weapons?
I think your idea sounds intriguing; it definitely could be used to give social interaction mechanics a strong "foundation" in the fiction (and thus preventing, say, an Intimidate roll from feeling flat or hollow).
How do you feel about Apocalypse World in this regard? In my experience, asking a player to describe what they'll give if they get X is a good way to ground "Seduce or Manipulate". For that matter, if a PC pulls out a gun and points it at someone, I ask them, "So, what do you want them to do? Are you gonna pull the trigger if they don't comply?" This way, the whole process gets unearthed. Is that the *kind* of thing that you're after? (Pursue it in your own way, mechanically, of course! I'm not trying to discourage you from developing your own idea)
Youre right, this is a threadjack. Suffice to say that you have a fair idea of where Im coming from given the stuff in your quote above.
Thats what I do at the moment, Im fixated on developing my own game and when I see a thread or post that touches on something Ive spent a lot of time on, I chip in and discuss that. See if I can get any other angles on it.
Like... to get back to the original point of this thread which is (I think) How to give the players room to explore characterization in a scripted sort of game?.
Back to your example - I dont think the onus was on the GM in this situation to back the players move with a dice roll for what seems to be an essentially implausible intent - to get the whores to 'see the light' just because the PC said so. However, that doesnt mean that the whole interaction is a write-off, because I certainly can see a born-again type of character attempting just that kind of thing.
I dont think players neccesesarilyl want to suceed or even the chance to suceed in this type of situation, what they want is for their actions/decisions to matter. And that basically means they have consequences -- good or bad.
The best advice Ive read (and incorporated into my own game :) ) is to respond to PC itnents with two kinds of question - What could go wrong with that ? and What are the possible consequences of that?
So in your example: What could go wrong with that? What are possible consequences of that?
a) the PC could make an enemy of the pimp - trying to run his girls out of business?
b) the whores could turn it back on the PC and demand that she find them alternative employment, cos they have kids to look after etc... -- how far is the PC willing to go to back up her own beliefs?
etc, etc...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page