Started by AJ_Flowers, April 29, 2009, 10:11:44 PM
Quote from: LandonSuffered on April 30, 2009, 12:02:56 PMThere's no 'role' that a particular player has (although there may be ownership of a character or characters).
QuoteI guess this is a broader question: I thought narratism was "story now," ie, the story is decided before play, but there are also aspects of discussion that talk about "story before" as being narrativist. So, okay, what we are doing is, we are deciding out the story before, and then playing it "now." If I want the story to unfold now without planning the whole thing before, isn't that still narrative of me?
Quote from: AJ_Flowers on April 30, 2009, 11:24:23 AMI'm mulling over a problem with it: Say the scene is, "We're robbing a train to get the magic artifact being transported," and the possible outcomes are "we don't get the artifact" or "we do get the artifact." In this case all the involved players do want to get the thing. I think the d10 solution has the problem of, my actions still don't matter per se, all that matters is the results of that one roll, not how clever I was in completing the action or what I did to do it.
QuoteBut if I envision a scene that isn't binary, where three different groups of PCs all want to get the artifact, but only one can. I have had a lot of trouble figuring out how to do conflict resolution in this situation on this game. The standard method that is used is: it's already determined who is getting it, and then we move on to "Part B" of the story next time we scene, but... well, and here I've accidentally introduced the metaphor of a train already.This is the part where your solution will work, I think: if it's three different people, and they're all making "get the McGuffin" rolls, the GM adds potentially a small bonus depending on what action they take, or takes away if the action is lame, and... then we have an arbiter to decide who gets the thing, which is visible to all players.
QuoteThe only potential point of quibble is how much of a bonus certain things might be worth.
Quote from: LandonSuffered on April 30, 2009, 03:49:54 PMSo to correct my earlier suggestion (somewhat): you might try a more traditional RPG (either in an on-line format or around a table) that has mechanics allowing your play group to address premise and create a story in a way that satisfies your creative agenda in the particular way you prefer.
Quote from: Callan S. on April 30, 2009, 07:43:51 PMAlso I was thinking outcomes more like "Does the orc village burn" and "Does the elf village burn". Either way, something happens. Like if you changed the second artifact outcome to "Does the artifact fall off the train, into a nearby town, activate and turn them into zombies" then something happens either way. Not getting the artifact is just...nothing happening.You might even get players staging character accidents, to get this bad zombie result...which is cool, I think! Characters actually failing and players are happy it happens - plot twists happening! All good! But if your thinking 'No metagame thinking, ever, even if it makes a better story' then I guess that'd have to be scolded.