Started by Cliff H, January 01, 2011, 12:41:05 AM
Quote from: Cliff H on January 03, 2011, 11:56:30 AMHowever, the players absolutely love Lovecraft, and have been begging me to include something mythos in a campaign for the better part of a year. ....Additionally, the verve with which this same player has launched himself at any text that seems heretical, all in an attempt to pump his Mythos lore in the game, and has wholly embraced the madness mechanic I wrote to deal with the side effects of such study, says that he's quite into it. It's odd. When I think about it, the group is perfectly capable of recognizing when things are taking that turn for the horrid. I deliberately change my language to use some of Lovecraft's phraseology when it happens. With that cue, they often respond "in atmosphere" the whole way through.
QuotePeople were arriving, pulling out characters, assembling dice, and spending xp from last session. While doing so, we usually chat until everyone's ready. I remarked that there were countless times when I tried to run something like Lord of the Rings but wound up with Royal Highness instead. There were nods and agreement all around.
Quote from: David Shockley on January 08, 2011, 06:55:46 PMWhen the enthusiastic player is launching himself at this stuff, do the other players respond positively? Do any of the other players initiate this sort of content themselves (Including via character creation/advancement options)?
QuoteI don't know what royal highness is.
QuoteBut really this doesn't sound like a creative agenda issue at all. You could shoot for narrativist lord of the rings but end up with a bunch of clowning around, perhaps at a princess bride level and...it'd still be narrativist.
QuoteYou might be holding onto the idea that perfect (until it's almost tangible) genre emulation is critical to CA. Well, in a simulationist CA it's pretty critical. Otherwise, it's not vital or indicative of CA issues.
QuoteCreative Agenda (CA) The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing. Three distinct Creative Agendas are currently recognized: Step On Up (Gamist), The Right to Dream (Simulationist), and Story Now (Narrativist). This definition replaces all uses of "Premise" in GNS and other matters of role-playing theory aside from the specific Creative Agenda of Narrativist play. Creative Agenda is expressed using all Components of Exploration, but most especially System.
QuoteAll are perfectly valid ways of interpreting the setting, but they can't all exist in the same game. We need to pick one version and all of us make characters and play according to that specific tone.
QuoteThey dealt with the devil, and if they couldn't get their friend to shut up, they were going to have to kill him. That actually made them quite uncomfortable (until the one player started asking if the man's mother was "bangable").
Quote from: Tim C Koppang on January 10, 2011, 12:34:19 PMIf you're really throwing a lot of uncomfortable situations and choices at them, they may want a break just to blow off some emotional steam.
Quote from: Callan S. on January 09, 2011, 12:04:56 AMExcept if your playing for nar enjoyment, you toss in say a choice between an easy job robbing a little old lady or a hard job robbing some nasty stock broker and suddenly all these utterly tone broken characters are arguing with each other over which to do (if not both). And that arguements fun...but how can it be fun, eh? Surely tone is all there is and it's wrecked? Well in sim, yeah, tone is all there is. But in nar, there's that argument fun, still fit, fat and functional. That argument fun sits on top of the tone. Sure it's nice to have coherant tone, but it's not needed. Unless your playing sim.
Quote from: Tim C Koppang on January 10, 2011, 12:34:19 PMIf you're playing 7th Sea, then I assume you're using task resolution. The players tell you what they are doing, they roll, and then either succeed or fail at the one particular task they were trying to accomplish. From the players' perspective, especially if they have no experience narrating the results of their own rolls, the narration may seem obvious to them.
QuoteSo what I'm saying is that it sounds like you're players simply haven't gotten used to the idea of narrating outcomes for themselves. This may resolve itself with practice. Or you may need to change to a very different system (per contracycle's suggestion).
Quote from: contracycle on January 09, 2011, 05:35:16 AMSo these are your hardened adventurers; they know what the game is, what they are supposed to do, and how to follow your lead when you give it. The one thing that doesn't appear here is the desire to assert control over the narrative in any proactive sense. So I'm not sure that outcome narration is suitable for this group, or if it is, it will need to come in some other, more radically distcint form. Playing a game familiar enough that it allows them to fall back on their veteran habits will reliably prompt them to do so, I think. Inasmuch as you are attempting to demonstrate a new way to play, you need to make a much sharper break with the past, I think.
QuoteI suspect that what is happening is that as defensive players, that surivivalist element is important to them. And so to fail, to really fail in a serious and meaningful way, would be a threat to their competence and effectiveness. And the solution to that is take the failure and draw its sting, to make it comedic rather than harmful or bitter, so exaggerated it cannot be taken seriously. That way they can even gain applause (laughter) from what would otherwise be a threatening outcome, and their self perception as effective and competent is preserved.
Quote from: Callan S. on January 11, 2011, 05:11:26 PMAfter the whole pick up line thing, what happened in terms of keeping him quiet or not? Or did you already describe that and I'm recalling badly? I think you said they didn't need to kill him in the end. But what changed the NPC's mind to not publishing the article?
QuoteI'm thinking one issue is that the dice roll, which seemed initiated by the player, was a bit 'premature ejaculation'.
QuotePerhaps if it becomes an informal rule that if a player picks up dice like that, he has to turn to the group first and go 'So...how bad is it if I fail' and actually wait a bit to get some feedback and back and forth on the matter? I'm not saying determine it in fine detail, just an overall sense of bad result?
Quote from: David Shockley on January 01, 2011, 11:27:25 AMObviously I don't know your group, or the groups Ron referred to, so I could be way off base. But this strikes me as a pretty straightforward example of Creative Agenda in action. I'm not sure how versed in the CA concept you are, but the idea that CA is what you intend to do, or that CA is what a specific person prefers to do, are both common misconceptions. CA is how you use the medium of play to enjoy the game _together_. It doesn't matter how invested in Lothar the badass barbarian, and his epic struggle to avenge his fallen village a player is, its not a part of CA until its enthusiastically shared and reinforced by the group. If everyones eyes glaze over when you talk about Lothar (perhaps not out of fundamental disinterest, but because we all know it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference), but they all grin or laugh when you have him trip over his feet and fall into a hole when you roll a 2 on your spot check... Then thats what you are going to do. In the essays Ron talks about how Sim is easily supplanted by the more basic human activities of competition (gamism) and story telling (narrativism), but Sim-comedy seems to be just as basic and powerful.Narration mechanics are a technique, that can support any agenda based on the context. In this game, they are supporting the Sim-comedy agenda. If you don't want to support it, I'd suggest removing or refocusing the mechanic. Honestly, what sort of failure narration would matter to the other players at the table? If the answer is none, then its not a useful rule.