Started by mcv, February 12, 2009, 07:01:36 AM
Quote from: Callan S. on February 18, 2009, 06:33:43 PMAlso, from what I've seen, didn't Mel give back the advance payment on the train robbery? He didn't break the deal - he declined it and handed back the advance payment. He found a way to fit his own values into the situation (though I imagine it was a painful one - he needs the cash)
QuoteQuoteThough it would be an unavoidable choice from a game perspective, because Simon and River are protagonists too, and it wouldn't make much of a game if you kick PCs out as if they were NPCs.Look no, your screwing up address of premise/nar by forcing a character choice 'in the interest of a better story'
QuoteThough it would be an unavoidable choice from a game perspective, because Simon and River are protagonists too, and it wouldn't make much of a game if you kick PCs out as if they were NPCs.
QuoteIf you were setting it up as a group, you just do a bit of story before - before play you talk about characters you'd all like to see. Then you'd ask each other 'would they all stay on the ship'?I could imagine a group that might have a few characters 'kicked out' by a Mel character during the brainstorming (and hell, maybe Mel might get kicked out - this is brain storming a campaign, not sticking to formula), before someone suggests River and Simon 'Aww, yeah, he'd take them, but only just!' 'GREAT, were good to go!'
QuoteAs opposed to traditional character gen, where everyone goes off on their own to make characters in secret, then they find at play they just wouldn't be together (and worse, nar play is then fucked up because 'in the interest of a better story' character choices are forced into accepting each other).
Quote from: mcv on February 18, 2009, 04:47:45 AMPersonally, while I appreciate escalating conflict as a basis for a good story in roleplaying (I don't have any experience with it, mind you), I'm not really willing to give up on the Dream altogether. I think, for me and a couple of other players in my group at least, the best games would have a bit of both. Or is that just Narrativism firmly gounded in Exploration? I do like immersion, in any case.
QuoteBut none of those quite fits what happens in The Train Job. There, Mal breaks a deal, because he realises the deal would hurt people he doesn't want to hurt. He doesn't lose the Faith, he doesn't feel bad about it, and he doesn't like breaking deals either. He breaks it because it conflicts with something more important.
QuoteAnother issue I'm still having with using game mechanics to drive story, is that game mechanics can be "gamed": manipulated for profit. I have no idea what Vice and Woe traits do, but they don't sound good. So that'd make Mal's choice one between gaining a bonus for sticking to his Faith, or gaining a new trait that he might not want. To me, that feels like interfering with his freedom to take his own responsibility for his choices. But maybe that's the simulationist in me.
QuoteBut that wasn't part of the deal. The deal was that he did the job, and he didn't. Returning the money make it okay for him, but that didn't make it okay for Niska. And Niska's henchmen made it clear that returning the money wasn't good enough.
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on February 19, 2009, 02:47:23 PM1) There may or may not be a "group" the PCs belong to. Even if they start as a group, the fact that the Players are have full freedom to make any choices they want for their PCs might mean the group might fracture and the PCs might even be at each other's throats before the characters finish their stories
Quote3) There is no expectation as to how things should be or will end up. At all. Initial circumstances are created -- and then we start rolling with the story and find out how it's all going to end up. No one, neither the GM nor the Players, can have an agenda or expectations about the way things are going go to be or supposed to be. I can only point, again, to the shows listed above to show how wonderfully varied stories can be once one leaves the "team" mentality behind.
QuoteI'm currently GMing a Sorcerer game in the setting of Traveller. My three players created a rich and detailed military background and intertwined history for their PCs. They decided they have a ship, run a merc crew. And then play began... last night one PC was desperately trying to save the religious leader from a mob while another PC trained his weapon on the leaders head, afraid of the trouble the woman would bring to his crew and his friends. It was an incredibly involved struggle for the three PCs as they tried to protect each other -- but also knew that they might come to blows with each other because of their own agendas that might transcend their friendships. (It feels very much like BSG, actually. Two of the PCs have smuggled a nuke onto their ship to use against their enemies (just in case), even though the third PC, the ship's captain, has explicitly forbidden this action.)
QuoteBy the time we're done with all this, the PCs might have all killed each other or might be stronger friends than they were before. We just don't know. And that's part of the fun. Everyone is playing from the perspective of their characters and the fiction... it's emotional and visceral and not academic or intellectual at all -- in part because the Player have the freedom to make any choice they want for their PCs out of the fiction as defined up to that point.
QuoteSo, before I go any further, do you have questions about playing this way? Is this something you can see working? Does it interest you? Why or why not?
Quote from: JB on February 19, 2009, 04:42:41 PMSince you don't have any nar games to refer to yet, consider this extremely rough and overly specific example.Imagine a game where Mal's player gets Points!* for 'looking out for his' and acting so they don't come to harm. And the player gets to choose NPCs who are 'his' - they go on a list on the character sheet. But if one of the characters on that list does come to harm, or the player wants to take someone off the list, then Mal's player looses Points!
Quote from: mcv on February 19, 2009, 06:44:22 PMto stay together.Have you read what I wrote in another thread about a particularly dramatic session with mismatched characters? It was memorable, but maybe a bit too intense, and not a lot of fun for the player who got completely overshadowed by the escalating conflict between the other characters.