[D&D3.0] Zac's examples (split)
David Berg:
Zac, I don't think you're blowing it out of proportion at all. That is a huge problem, when a player thought they'd get agency over something (even if via a die roll) and they don't.
That ruins any agenda, though, not just Narrativism.
(And if you as GM were squashing agency because you wanted to keep the game on the topic the group had chosen -- well, poor execution, but constructive intent. Further, I'd say such intent can be constructive even within Narr play -- not every premise-addressing game needs to address prostitution.)
I think this is different than what you've been saying, but if not, never mind, I must have just tripped up over your wording.
Abkajud:
No way, Dave! You nailed it.
I think it's totally ok to have an agreement that a game will focus on certain subject matter, but then it's kind of unsporting for the GM to put such content in, anyway.
In the example I gave, though, it plays out a little differently - by (albeit gently/subtly) shooting down a player who was trying to nudge play in a new direction, I was basically saying, "These prostitutes are for my story-use only! They are not yours, players!" Not really fair, imo. Especially if that player's character was sex-themed (a succubus!), there's an element to which it should be "open season" on any sex-related content in play.
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.
That being said, rule-breaking is not some betrayal or some evil thing. It just requires a pause in play so that we can find out why someone took a toy back out of the Play Circle again.
So to speak.
Not all games are played this way. Sometimes, the GM is going to arrange most of the playing pieces and tell us where to put our action figures. Other times, we can all break out the Legos and build the playset together as a group. Various other analogies could also be employed. ^__^
stefoid:
This is pretty general social conflict/challenge/whatever rules, not just D&D.
Heres the take from my game:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5W32IfgIIkrZDUwMzFhZWItYzA2Yi00NDg5LWFmOWEtOTdhYWY0OWZiYjM5&hl=en_US
The basic idea is that wielding influence through social means requires some kind of leverage, and a particular amount of leverage is judged to be one of sufficient, close or insufficient to influence the target. The definition of leverage is pretty loose - it can be anything from a situation the character has engineered to a relationship between characters.
Theres two important things to note about this
a) If the leverage is judged to be either sufficient/insufficient, then the influence works / cant work respectively, and there is no test/dice/whatever needed to resolve that. Its just the way it is. Its only when the leverage is cudged to be 'around the mark' that social skills such as persuasion or intimidation can help tip the result one way or the other
b) who judges if the leverage is sufficient/close/insufficient? If the target is an NPC, its the GM. If its a PC, then its the player.
So in this example, some goody-two shoes comes cold-calling and point blank, it would be entirely OK for the GM to decide the whores take no notice of the PC whatsoever. Clearly the leverage is insufficient.
Its up to the PC to engineer some leverage that is either clearly sufficient, or at least close ebough to warrant the application of social skill to close the deal. Gifting a huge amount of cash would be clearly sufficient. Establishing some kind of relationship with the whores over time such that they gain respect and trust of the PC might be enough leverage to get her close or enough to apply social skill at some stage. Barging in cold and giving orders is clearly insufficient.
Abkajud:
Steve,
What do you feel like this approach to social interaction brings to your game?
stefoid:
Quote from: Abkajud on November 20, 2011, 10:29:08 PM
Steve,
What do you feel like this approach to social interaction brings to your game?
Just what Ive mentioned here addresses the issue of when social skills can be applied and makes explicit who gets to decide that.
Also I dont like the idea of being able to use social skills as a blunt weapon/opaque process. So choice of social skills in my game are limited to means, not ends. persuade, intimidate, seduce (common social skills in many games) are all 'ends' which encourages blunt and opaque use of social skill.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page