I invite you to use this sheet to dial up and flip on your RPG play preferences. It may even help to articulate preference across your group and lead to an understanding of underlying differences.
In most cases, the following issues are addressed specifically by the system you play, thereby promoting different types of play experience. For the purpose of this exercise, simply note your preferences, without regard to system.
Our attention begins with a mix of combat and story. Here I define story as "non-combat character action." To me, combat without story lacks context. I also find that story without combat can sometimes drag. There's a conundrum here: characters make stories go, yet there's a risk they might die in combat. How should play manage the threat of character death?
[list=1]
- Not only should they die if the dice say so, but also, play the bad guys tactically! Try to kill the characters!
- Don't get involved. Play it by the numbers. Match attackers to characters randomly. If the dice say a hit dropped a life total below zero, they're dead.
- Just make the players think the characters are in danger. Gauge risk level by overt signs of emotional investment. Cheat hits and damage to prevent fatality.[/list:o]
Character Death:___
The agenda for play may require a particular character for pre-determined plot continuity. More generally, a player-to-character relationship is the principal means of involvement in the game exploration. So what's next for the player, after character death?
[list=1]
- That player's done for the night.
- Takeover a secondary character. They can be tag-alongs that roll to the front, or the GM can introduce them in a subsequent scene.
- Employ Raise Dead abilities, if available.[/list:u]
- Raise Dead through authorial introduction. [/list:o]
After Death:___
For RPG's, authorship is the introduction of new game elements (as opposed to arranging existing ones, which would be directorship). It's important to determine if it will be allowed and whether it comes primarily from the players or the GM.
[list=1]
- A player compares "what he does" and "what he's out to do" with "what's going on" and says, "wouldn't it be cool if . . ." The GM perks up and renders the game world accordingly.
- The module is what it is. Players should take the hint; the GM need simply read the map and roll for encounters.
- The GM monitors player involvement and creates situations particular to character interest or ability. Players, enjoy the tailored setups. [/list:o]
Authorship:___
There are 2 well established modes of play: pre-determined and protagonist. With the former, the story is set, and play is very much like walking through the steps of a highly choreographed dance. With the latter, the story is only potential, and play is like meeting an intriguing stranger at a club and hearing an infectious song you've never heard before. They require vastly different kinds of prep, game play expectations and attitudes towards involvement.
Play Mode
[list=1]
- Pre-determined.
- Pro: Highly structured play that insures something will happen. It can be fun to see where things take you.
- Con: It can be tedious following directions and frustrating to neglect one's impulse. The limitations of the script may chaff.[/list:u]
- Protagonist.
- Pro: Freedom to decide interest; power to alter a story's direction. It's an adventure to create your own experience.
- Con: There may be no connection, no interest developed. The weight of the lead can be daunting.[/list:u][/list:o]
Play Mode:___
The question of involvement by group or through threads of individual plot lines is essential.
[list=1]
- Players direct threading and cross cutting. GM, split the story into whichever player-centered splinters may be required; switch back and forth, discontinue and reconnect, as requested.
- No threading by elected splitting of the group. Players agree to share a single window through which to view the game world. In the case of splitting through resolution, one thread will be primary and the other subsumed unto reconnection.
- GM directs threading and cross cutting; press to significance, and cross cut to juggle involvement. Out-of-scene players, be cool and groove on the limelight player's vibe. [/list:o]
Threading:___
A related issue is managing thread bleed in terms of OOC information affecting player direction. The group should decide whether to physically separate to enforce IC direction or to trust to player discipline.
Thread Bleed Handling
[list=1]
- Physical separation.
- Pro: Creates literal mystery, at the player level.
- Con: Pacing and equal involvement suffers.[/list:u]
- Rely on Player Discipline.
- Pro: Provides opportunity for director(s) to intensify player involvement.
- Con: Enforcement can be divisive.[/list:u][/list:o]
Thread Bleed:___
********************************************************
Thanks for reading and filling out this sheet. Hopefully, this exercise has shown you a range of possibilities across the listed dynamics and helped to better inform your expectations of RPG play.
Looks pretty cool. Are you looking for some feedback on this? If so, what? I'm not sure that it would be considered appropriate for people to actually post their results here.
Mike
Yeah, definitely some cool stuff there. I suspect its value for most people I play with would be to serve as a springboard for discussion of why the preferred answer isn't really covered by the options provided. But I'm reluctant to go down that road in this thread - unless that's the kind of feedback bcook is looking for?
Gordon
First of all, I like this a lot in when it addresses fairly concrete cases: character death, and party split up. If you are giving a quiz, it be as specific as possible.
Quote from: bcook1971Our attention begins with a mix of combat and story. Here I define story as "non-combat character action." To me, combat without story lacks context. I also find that story without combat can sometimes drag.
Hrrrm. I think this is a somewhat peculiar definition of story, actually. I think separating combat and non-combat is a good idea, but I'd prefer a better term for non-combat.
Quote from: bcook1971Play Mode
1) Pre-determined.
- Pro: Highly structured play that insures something will happen. It can be fun to see where things take you.
- Con: It can be tedious following directions and frustrating to neglect one's impulse. The limitations of the script may chaff.[/list:u]2) Protagonist
- Pro: Freedom to decide interest; power to alter a story's direction. It's an adventure to create your own experience.
- Con: There may be no connection, no interest developed. The weight of the lead can be daunting.[/list:u]
I'm dubious about the pre-detemined vs protagonist distinction. First of all, I think the latter should be "improvised" or just "non-pre-determined". I think you don't actually mean protagonist in a literary sense. I agree with both the pro and con of pre-determined. However, the improvised comments make little sense to me. Collectively, the group always have power over a story's direction -- the question is whether they exercise that power in advance, or at the spur of the moment. A separate question is about how story control is divided among the GM and players.
Just vigourously shaking my head in agreement with John's statements.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesAre you looking for some feedback on this? If so, what? I'm not sure that it would be considered appropriate for people to actually post their results here.
Feedback is not unwelcome. Please share your impression of this format and these issues. Are they relevant? Do the options express an elegant yet thorough range? Is there a play preference that is related to this group that has been omitted? I agree with your propriety.
Quote from: Gordon C. LandisI suspect its value for most people I play with would be to serve as a springboard for discussion of why the preferred answer isn't really covered by the options provided. But I'm reluctant to go down that road in this thread - unless that's the kind of feedback bcook is looking for?
Cool. Yes, it is.
Quote from: John KimI think this is a somewhat peculiar definition of story, actually. I think separating combat and non-combat is a good idea, but I'd prefer a better term for non-combat.
I also have misgivings about the choice. I welcome your suggestion.
Quote from: John KimI'm dubious about the pre-detemined vs protagonist distinction. First of all, I think the latter should be "improvised" or just "non-pre-determined". I think you don't actually mean protagonist in a literary sense.
Maybe my expression of play mode is just a restatement of preference over authorship. My source is a series of articles (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/waystoplay.html) by Chris Chinn.
Quote from: John KimI agree with both the pro and con of pre-determined. However, the improvised comments make little sense to me.
The pro is unsatisfying; however, the con is spot on to what I mean. I think most people can sympathize with the disappointment of nothing happening where the expectation that something would was so considerable that nothing was pre-determined.
Quote from: John KimCollectively, the group always have power over a story's direction -- the question is whether they exercise that power in advance, or at the spur of the moment. A separate question is about how story control is divided among the GM and players.
True to a degree, and that is a telling condition. But more to your assertion, if game play is a straight read, I see limited power. That timing bit checks the pulse of distinction.
I read "story direction" as "what happens next" and "story control" as "who gets to say." I think the first issue is mastered by degree of reference and the second by authority.
I see 3 possibilities as to approach: rendering, interpreting and brainstorming.
Btw, thanks for the "cools" and "like a lots." Makes me feel good:)
Quote from: bcook1971Quote from: John KimI think this is a somewhat peculiar definition of story, actually. I think separating combat and non-combat is a good idea, but I'd prefer a better term for non-combat.
I also have misgivings about the choice. I welcome your suggestion.
I don't have a great one other than "non-combat". Maybe "dialogue"? But that is a bit deceptive as well if it includes things like travel, investigation, and technical work.
Quote from: bcook1971Quote from: John KimI'm dubious about the pre-detemined vs protagonist distinction. First of all, I think the latter should be "improvised" or just "non-pre-determined". I think you don't actually mean protagonist in a literary sense.
Maybe my expression of play mode is just a restatement of preference over authorship. My source is a series of articles (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/waystoplay.html) by Chris Chinn.
OK. Really, Chris' articles are advocacy of what he calls the "protagonist" style of play -- teaching how it works and explaining why he likes it. He doesn't try to be even-handed, or to describe pre-determined play much, because it isn't his interest. However, in a quiz like yours, you are trying to distinguish preferences. I'd suggest a split more like "planned" vs "improvised" for plot. But you need more questions on this to separate between GM-vs-player control and planned-vs-improvised.
Quote from: bcook1971Quote from: John KimCollectively, the group always have power over a story's direction -- the question is whether they exercise that power in advance, or at the spur of the moment. A separate question is about how story control is divided among the GM and players.
True to a degree, and that is a telling condition. But more to your assertion, if game play is a straight read, I see limited power. That timing bit checks the pulse of distinction.
I read "story direction" as "what happens next" and "story control" as "who gets to say." I think the first issue is mastered by degree of reference and the second by authority.
I see 3 possibilities as to approach: rendering, interpreting and brainstorming.
Let me see if I understand this. I'll try at some definitions which seem to fit the words. Rendering is highly pre-planned story, where the group has defined all the major events in advance. Play consists of portraying and adding nuance to what happens. Interpretting is loosely planned story, where the group defines a broad storyline -- including the central conflict and important characters, but not all the events. Play consists of seeing how the conflict is resolved. Brainstorming is deciding on the story only after play has started.
Maybe you could come up with a separate question for story planning and for story control?
Quote from: John KimRendering is highly pre-planned story, where the group has defined all the major events in advance. Play consists of portraying and adding nuance to what happens. Interpreting is loosely planned story, where the group defines a broad storyline -- including the central conflict and important characters, but not all the events. Play consists of seeing how the conflict is resolved. Brainstorming is deciding on the story only after play has started.
That's the idea. What I had in mind is
[list=a]
- Walking through a written story without deviation.
- GM: "You find a room at the Inn. You visit the market and buy supplies. On the way back, you're confronted by a priest with a locked box on a chain around his neck and 2 lizard men goons. He demands a monetary penance for his snake god."
- PC: "You tell that clown I said he can blow it out his ass!"
[/list:u]
- Treating the written story as a concept to be implemented according to the players' interests.
- GM: "This town is controlled by the Serpent Cult. They have a large presence."
- PC#1: "Let's demonstrate that feature."
- PC#2: "We could have some kind of stand off that might get bloody."
- GM: "They'll recognize you're not locals. So maybe they'll try to convert you. Even threaten force."
- PC#1: "Or they could mistake us for locals and demand some kind of tithe."
- PC#2: "I like that!"
- GM: "Cool. Walk us through it."
[/list:u]
- Absent any written story, fielding ideas and other players reacting with their own.
- GM: "We need to involve Grak in some kind of holy crusade."
- PC#1: "Right. Let's have a cult spreading out across a cluster of kingdoms, threatening to create an uprising to unify a realm under its leader's control.
- PC#2: "That's cool. Have it be a snake-worshiping cult like in Conan the Barbarian."
- GM: "We could say Sara was the bastard child of a priestess in the harem of a general who commands a regimen for the Serpent Lord."
- PC#2: "Right. Then I could have been fed to a big snake since they only keep boys."
- PC#3: "Why only boys?"
- PC#2: "Err . . . To make eunuchs?"
- PC#1: "So how did you survive?"
- PC#2: "My mother arranged to have me orphaned without the general's knowledge."
- PC#1: "So she grew up as a beggar and a prostitute, with only a medallion from her mother as a keepsake."
- GM: "Let's say one of her regulars tricks her into a gang rape."
- PC#1: "Ok. Set it in a cult-infested town. She survives and is brought to a church for care where Grak has stopped to perform a communion ritual."
[/list:u]
[/list:o]
As I write this I'm struck with the need to establish authority for story control. It's like the farther you push it, the more blurry the line between GM and player becomes. In fact (and I'm just thinking aloud), I think a committee is a better model at the third level. You'd have to provide alternate structure to commit ideas (e.g. voting, round of turns, bidding plot points, etc.).
Cool! This is better than what I started with in attempting to delineate play mode.
To be clear, I see your point about separating authority from degree of reference. I think the above provides options for the latter. As to the former, . . .
[list=a]
- The GM acts as a tour guide, following a program of events. The players take in the sights and involve themselves in a manner appropriate to the situation.
- The GM is like a dad taking his family out to an amusement park. The players excitedly explore the grounds and say things like "I wanna ride this ride next!" or "The line's too long. Let's come back later." or "Enough of the rides for a minute. I'm ready for a lemon icee."
- The GM is a chair for a committee of players. An agenda is approved and items are brought to the floor for discussion. At some point, the players vote, the GM declares a motion carried and the session advances to the next item.
[/list:o]
Although with option (c), it's much more like agenda is a reactionary chain and consent is determined by lack of dissent.