The Forge Archives

My concern is that there might be a conflict between having mechanics that encourage the player act on things which they deem critical to their characters (mechanics along the line of SAs in TROS), and still having the group of characters (i.e. the party) act in overall unison. I can see many cases where a player decision that might be the most appropriate as an "in character action" will cause the party to fragment. To keep the party whole, the player must instead choose an option which might fly against the "most probable action my character would take", introducing inconsistencies in how the character behaves. I feel like there should be a justification as to why the character did X (which keeps the party unified) instead of the seemingly more "character accurate" option Y.

It might be valid to ask, why worry about party cohesion in the first place? The biggest reason is unequal screen time for all the characters, especially if one player is a much more assertive roleplayer. If the party is constantly fragmented, the GM has to switch from player to player. This can be boring for the non-active players. The worst case is when one character has to perform some extended task, while the rest of the party is not doing anything (and having the other players describe character actions would only be filler). If this is well executed, with perhaps the other players getting to make rolls for the NPCs and the action itself is very exciting for everyone, not just a single player, this is not a problem. What causes problems is if a player or players go solo all the time, with no OOC planing and no time for the GM to be ready for it.

What I used to do in the past, is strongly encourage the players to avoid such party fragmentation. This didn't mean that no one ever went solo or that there were never any in-party conflicts, but the players were asked to provide the justifications for their X/Y decisions (this could be done as an OOC discussion, or assigned retroactively – I am also fond of having the player describe their characters thoughts. This clues in the other players, but leaves their characters in the dark). I used more of the stick than the carrot to get this done. But I don't want to punish the player for choosing to "act in character", and so I'm looking for alternate methods to accomplish this.

I really like the view express countless times by Mike Holmes. Reward the desired behaviour. My solution now is to give game currency to a player who chooses go with the less "character perfect" options and provides a justification (I should point out that justification is not needed for gray areas of decision making, but only for the instances where everything else about the character and how he was played up to this point says do Y and break group cohesion, and the players does X instead). Likewise, if the player goes about not only serving his own character's needs, but brings in other characters as well (sharing the limelight so to speak) there is a reward.  Initially this currency went directly to the player, but since I already assign currency for having the player follow his character's priorities (encouraging action Y), I decided to try something different. The currency is assigned instead to a general pool. The pool is distributed at the end of each session amongst the players by the players. They can either split it equally, distribute it based on need, or based on contributions as they see fit. Some of the currency can be left to carry over into the next session. Also, a player can withdraw currency from the pool during play, but the other players must agree to this, and this can be only done once per session (and there should probably be limit to how big a chunk the player can get, either during play or when they are being divided up at the end). My question then is, is this a sufficient reward since the points don't go to the player directly? Any other possible pitfalls or solutions? Or maybe this whole party cohesion is a non-issue?

I think that if you value party cohesion and in-character behavior both, then you are probably better off with setting un in-character reasons for the characters to act cohesively than any game mechanic.

I might set up a player-driven award system where other players award each othre for actions that they particularly liked, as well.

Probably the best solution is group characther creation. Heck, then you can have the players create reasons for their group to be togehter. It increases the chances that when a player has to go off solo, that they will bring others with them.

The intial group setup and their reason for functioning together is not a problem. But for long term play there might be divergent character goals. Always making groups of characters that have the exact same goals could take care of this, but it doesn't seem like fun. In fact, I do like diversity in the group, and the tension for each player between holding the group together, and acting "true" to the character. Figuring out why the character chooses to hang around instead of taking off should be a responsibility of the player, and I'm looking for ways to encourage this. Having the characters always together is not ideal. If a single character goes solo, then the rest of the players should be in agreement with this and have a vested interest in the outcome. Either because of tactical necessity, or because it will make for a cool story. Most of this is probably covered by the social contract, but somehow I would like to have it incorporated and supported in the game. Allowing players to form relationship links amongst their characters is certainly a good way to start.

I also like four willows weeping suggestion of having an award system among the players. And I think I might know just how to do it. Thanks.

Hi KS,

I confess that I see no a priori reason to desire "the party" to cohere. I'm not even sure that I understand why there has to be "a party." Can you give me a reason for this so that I can better understand what your personal goals-in-play are?

I'm not looking for a possible reason that anyone would want "party" to have "the same long-term goals." I've role-played long enough to grasp the range of options. What I'd like to know, in detail and with examples, what your reason is.

I strongly recommend looking through some threads at the Forge about hooking players, not characters. One cannot make a given player care about something, nor can any amount of pre-play specification make the characters "stay together." That has to come from players (and here I emphatically include the GM as a type of player) being interested in (a) the task at hand and (b) what the task at hand is about (across the whole range of GNS).

The fundamental concept is that player-group participation can occur with no problems even if the characters are not "a party" and do not necessarily all want the same things. This may seem odd to you or not be compatible with other goals of yours. That's why I'd like to understand those goals better.

Best,
Ron

There's a part of me that doesn't see the problem. I always juggle multiple players on different adventures at the same time, and find it a fascinating way to play. But then, there is a part of me that "gets it", so I'm going to address it.

What I don't understand is why you would really want to reward a player for having his character act "out of character" for the purpose of group cohesion and for no other purpose. That's where the problem lies. But does this have to be the case?

The most dedicated group of anarchists in the world is going to have structure within its own ranks, because it cannot achieve its goals without that structure. If you want the characters to stick together, you need to create at the outset a compelling reason for them to be together at all. If they share a common overwhelming enemy or a mutual fear, this forces them to hang together even if their individual priorities might separate them.

Over time, many groups come to stick together because of friendships. Such friendships can be introduced as part of the reason they are together initially; I have often introduced a character to a party as "someone that this guy knows because they grew up together", implying a bond with an existing history. In this, blood is thicker than water, and there's no reason why characters can't be related, and so have the more reason to stick together.

Ultimately I would never want my players to have their characters do something clearly against the personality, values, and goals of the character. The only remedy, if group cohesion is important, is that group cohesion must be very high in those priorities. If it isn't, then neither the characters nor the players can seriously expect the group to stay together.

--M. J. Young

The game that solves this problem best, in my opinion, is Nobilis.  In that game, you can't blow off the other characters because THEY ARE YOUR FAMILY.  It can be an incredibly disfuctional family, but all the family members still have to cooperate and live together, no matter how much they disagree.  Nobilis exaggerates this a little bit, so it's possible to have someone who serves the Angels and someone who serves the Devils in the same family, but there's this great creative tension going on, where the differences develop plotlines all on their own.

Likewise, if you're going to rely on the party system, you might want to thinking about making it a foundational structure of your game world.  Vampire does this a little bit with coteries, Nobilis does this with familes of dieties, and the game I'm currently working on, Storypunk, does this because the characters are safer and more powerful in a group.  Make the consequences for not being with the party such that the characters have no real reasons to leave.

Think about all the horror movies you've ever seen.  Think about Pitch Black.  If you go off by yourself, something bad happens to you.  Even in traditional fantasy games, no one's dumb enough to say "Hey, I'm going to go explore the dungeon by myself!"  

Since roleplaying is a collective activity, most games have built-in reasons for characters to stick to this structure.  Think about the Avengers or the Justice League.  Think about The Fellowship of the Ring.  THESE are the things that inspired roleplaying in the first place, and we continue to look back to them as models of the party system.

That said, the best games that I've played in have never required the characters to stay together every single minute.  It's getting a proper balance that's the hard part.

Later.
Jonathan

QuoteUltimately I would never want my players to have their characters do something clearly against the personality, values, and goals of the character.

I fully agree with this.

QuoteWhat I don't understand is why you would really want to reward a player for having his character act "out of character" for the purpose of group cohesion and for no other purpose. That's where the problem lies. But does this have to be the case?

That is not the intent at all. The existing reward system is setup to reward character actions that the player defines as important. The player creates the "Priorities", which are the elements that get explored via the character. They could be very character goal oriented, or completely meta-game. These priorities could in some cases be pursued completely independently of the rest of the group, both character-group and player-group (with the exception of the GM).  For example, a player who wants to interact with every NPC encountered, resulting in a lot of time being dedicated to the one player and GM interaction. This is something that breaks the player-group (in theory all of the other character's might be around, but are not being involved). Likewise, a player can break the character-group. While all the other characters are getting some R&R, and the players expect to move past this part of the game onto the next interesting encounter, a player could decide to pursue some activity where his character is the only one involved. I don't want the burden to be only on the GM to equalize the "on-screen" time for all the characters. I'm looking to have something that helps the players self-regulate this aspect of play.

This doesn't mean that the odd-player out will always have to try and conform to group. Example, 3 out the 4 players want to take their characters into a dungeon, but one player needs to head back home. To do otherwise would be totally counter to the character concept. No way do I want the player to break the character concept. At this point the character-group should be broken before the character concept. To avoid this, the other players should realize this and justify for the characters, why its more important to head back to town than to continue on to the dungeon. This is not an issue if the characters are all connected such a family or really tight friends. But I'm talking about character-groups that have a bit more tension to them, more push and pull, and the need to make compromises. I don't want the character-group to consist of a leader and bunch of lackeys (unless of course this is what the players want).  A game where the characters meet and all of a sudden become best buddies are kind of hard to swallow. It's just too convenient. Each character should come with their own agenda and motives (which are the extension of what the player wants to get out the game), and the character-group is usually formed because of necessity, convenience, or coincidence.

Getting back to Ron's post.

QuoteI confess that I see no a priori reason to desire "the party" to cohere. I'm not even sure that I understand why there has to be "a party." Can you give me a reason for this so that I can better understand what your personal goals-in-play are?

I hope that my previous post was of some use in this regard. Giving this some thought, it might not be so much about keeping the character-group as whole all the time, but making sure that all the players have their share of the spot light. This will mainly (but not exclusively) mean character activity, and for me this seems easier to obtain when characters remain fairly close.

QuoteThe fundamental concept is that player-group participation can occur with no problems even if the characters are not "a party" and do not necessarily all want the same things.

I am not saying that the characters have to be together all the time. They could be completely scattered, and that is not a problem for me, as long as every player is getting equal playing time. This is fine if the GM can move from player to player and their characters have equal amount of interesting stuff to do. Where this can fall apart is when some players end up with a very lean activity for their characters, while others are very activity rich. This means that some players spend more time spectating than playing, or that the lean activities need to be made richer. This could work, but at some point it might feel very artificial and forced as the GM is constantly trying to think of something new to throw at the characters that really should be off-screen.

QuoteI strongly recommend looking through some threads at the Forge about hooking players, not characters.

I've have read those threads, and that is something I have tried to implement. What I am looking do to now is have players not only thinking about and pursuing their own hooks, but also be aware of not impeding the other players. The system should make it easy for players to support each other's priorities.

To reiterate, I'm not seeking a "squad" game, or a situation where the characters are always together.  The in-group (character group) tension and conflict should be present, and forcing a fixed set of goals for all characters is not what I'm after. If a player wants to pursue something interesting, it should be done without leaving the other players behind or out of the loop. Keeping the character-group together makes this easier, but is not necessary.

To put things more bluntly, I have sat in a game where half the players did nothing, while the other half engaged in "role-playing a shopping expedition". This was a complete waste of time. I want a game with tools not only for the GM, but also for the players to maximize player involvement. Since time is a limited resources, it means proportioning it in the best possible way for all those involved.

Quote from: ks13Where this can fall apart is when some players end up with a very lean activity for their characters, while others are very activity rich.

I think, perhaps, the problem is not with screen-time or amount of activity, but with the interest generated by or rather, inherent in the action. That is, even a minor, relatively short event could generate a great deal of interest for everyone at the table, even those not involved directly in the action.

Further, don't discount the other players as enjoying themselves as audience members -- if as an audience they're engaged with the events of the other characters, if they see them as interesting, exciting and important, the "screen time" problem goes away. It is running sessions in such a fashion that this occurs which may be problematic at first.

As Ron mentioned, you'll want to look into how to hook players, not characters, and reading through this thread (Get to the Point (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2630)) might help as well.

Basically, I'm saying that avoiding lean activity in play is best...as you say, sessions where half the group "role-plays" a shopping expedition are boring to more-or-less everyone involved. The question is, WHY role-play such events? Of what importance are they to the goals of your group of players as players (not as the players of characters/players in a game)?

Quote from: four willows weepingI might set up a player-driven award system where other players award each othre for actions that they particularly liked, as well.

I've found this doesn't work in practice...though that is only my experience among the groups I've been in, and with the method we've attempted: post-game awards. Players simply forget to vote for/reward anyone else.

This is possibly due a lack of getting anything back in return -- making such rewards a public, in-game affair might alleviate this as players realize handing out awards means a sort of social-obligation will be set up to receive them in return.

But this might aggravates the problem I think is the heart of the issue: putting players on the spot. Particularly if one player consistently makes the game more interesting than the other players, as anyone who awards the same co-player more than once a session could be socially singled out as playing favorites.

And it creates the situation of focusing or representing one player as "better than" another (which may in fact be true...but will that help or harm the group? Will it cause the others to compete for the awards and improve their play, or nurse subconcious grudges about being "unfairly judged?")

A group vote might work instead in this case, with someone nominating someone for an award...but my question would be: how much does that cut into game-time? And if it is done after the session, how fair will it be?

(ie: in 7th Sea, Drama dice are handed out at the moment the player earns them through feats of wit and derring-do on the player's part, not after the session)

Hi there,

I see your position better now. Your last two posts seemed to be about something very different from your first, but upon re-reading them all, I now see what you're up to (second paragraph in your first post). The emphasis on screen time makes more sense to me than references to "characters staying together." But finally I get what you're saying, so my apologies for being dense.

The initial version of your solution, individual-player rewards, is a bit like Fang's Experience Dice (kind of a deceptive name) in Scattershot, which is a good thing, in my view. You might check out some of his work in the Scattershot forum, which provides a hell of a lot of careful vocabulary about things like Genre Expectations and player-approaches.

The second "pool" version is very different, though - I like it a lot, I think it serves your stated goals really well, and I'd like to play a game using this as either a core or a strong secondary system.

The role of the GM becomes pretty important in such a system, as the "values handler" for adding dice to the pool. It's a lot like Sorcerer in that the GM is arbiter for Humanity rolls. Lately I've been interested in the diversity of ways for a GM-role to be functional (as opposed to "responsible for everything"), specifically the concept that there is a diversity, such that "the GM" as a phrase in game discussion becomes deconstructed into more useful units. Your proposal provides a great example of one such unit.

Best,
Ron

QuoteI see your position better now. Your last two posts seemed to be about something very different from your first, but upon re-reading them all, I now see what you're up to (second paragraph in your first post). The emphasis on screen time makes more sense to me than references to "characters staying together." But finally I get what you're saying, so my apologies for being dense.

Ron, no apologies needed. I confused the issue a bit. I equated "characters stay together" with more screen time, because if the group is whole you always have the opportunity to jump in and participate. In a scattered group with divergent activities, this might not be so easy. This is of course a gross approximation, since there can be plenty of cases where a totally fragment group provides more equal on-screen time for all players than a group-as-a-whole encounter.

From greyorm's post:

QuoteBasically, I'm saying that avoiding lean activity in play is best...as you say, sessions where half the group "role-plays" a shopping expedition are boring to more-or-less everyone involved. The question is, WHY role-play such events?

This should not be happening. I wouldn't do it, and the people here wouldn't run a game that way either. But it happens (as I witnessed first hand), and there was no recourse for players to take. They kind of stumbled around, wondering why the GM was allowing it. Maybe it was critical to play (it wasn't), so they kept going. I want the players themselves to be able to steer things back on course, and be aware of how much participation the other players have. The easiest way I see for this to happen, is for the player to say "hmm, if I can involve the rest of the players, there will be currency rewards." This is countered by the fact that breaking the character credibility will cause the player to miss out on direct currency rewards. Hence two award systems to balance the play between individual screen time, and group involvement.

QuoteI think, perhaps, the problem is not with screen-time or amount of activity, but with the interest generated by or rather, inherent in the action.
....
Further, don't discount the other players as enjoying themselves as audience members -- if as an audience they're engaged with the events of the other characters, if they see them as interesting, exciting and important, the "screen time" problem goes away.

Ah yes, but the trick is to keep everyone engaged, especially those who are not directly involved. If it happens a few times, then it's not so difficult, but if the group is constantly in bits and pieces, keeping everyone interested is that much tougher. Especially if it is all left to the GM. Why not have some of this responsibility placed on the players? Have the rewards not only for "avoid breaking the character-group" but also for keeping everyone else interested.

I would like to elaborate on the reward/currency system that I am planning on using. The first part is currency awarded directly to the player when their "priorities" are in play. The currency is awarded on the spot (like Scattershot experience dice?, or 7th sea drama dice). The second set of rewards goes into a pool. This is awarded by GM whenever one player makes decisions or takes actions that engage the other players (perhaps by including their characters, or choosing not to act out actions with little value to everyone else). If there is dice stacking, doodling, or other "bored players" activity at the table, there will probably not be anything going into the pool. If all the players are "into it", regardless of where or what their characters are doing, then the pool builds up quickly. The pool gets divied up at the end of the session whatever way the players want, but I expect that 90% of the time it will be done equally. As Ron pointed out, the GM's role in this is substantial due to the assignment of dice into the pool. But the GM is no longer the only one responsible for keeping everything interesting for all the players.

The player-player rewards work somewhat differently than perhaps expected. Say one player goes off solo. His task is of significant importance to either the rest of the group or the story (usually both). The other players can support the solo player by each donating a point of currency, and in effect designated the player as a "lead protagonist" for the duration of a scene. The solo player can use the currency to buy bonus dice and use them as aid during the resolution of the scene (bonus dice are useable only in certain instances, this now being one of them). The other players now have a very direct vested interest in the actions of the solo player. After all, they have currency invested in this.  The point of all this being that if a player can't get screen time, than it is because something else incredible interesting is taking place and being a spectator is not at all a bad thing.

Quote from: ks13I want the players themselves to be able to steer things back on course, and be aware of how much participation the other players have. The easiest way I see for this to happen, is for the player to say "hmm, if I can involve the rest of the players, there will be currency rewards."

Ahhh, thank you for clearing that up, it all makes more sense now.

QuoteIf it happens a few times, then it's not so difficult, but if the group is constantly in bits and pieces, keeping everyone interested is that much tougher.

I agree.

Ron, I think, has a technique where the player-characters never have to be together as a group and things nonetheless run smoothly. You should ask him about it, however, as I'm still in the "How do you DO that!?" stage in regards to such a method.

QuoteI would like to elaborate on the reward/currency system that I am planning on using.

Heck, I might use that for my game, modified a bit, since I like seeing players handing out XP awards to one another and "competing" in a good way to get them from each other.

I think this is a very cool idea.

The Narrativist gang have been saying for a while that the way to ensure that all are involved is to make each individual player's play so interesting as to engage the other players. But I think that's a problematic response. There will be times when the player simply fails, or does not want to do something that's engaging to the other players (for example, much Sim play).

So having a mechanic where players are rewarded for incorporating the other characters seems very powerful to me. This way, you don't have to do "party" play, but you still get characters crossing each other's paths. And all without the GM having to orchestrate it. That's very important, because with the GM orchestrating, things can get a little forced ver time as well (and, heck, I'm lazy).

So I'm all for it. Let's see the execution.

Mike

Has anyone considered the motif rules for the Questing Beast?   The fact that motifs can happen any place, any time, allows players to either inocrporate their motifs into another player's scene, or vice versa.  

Chris

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonEven in traditional fantasy games, no one's dumb enough to say "Hey, I'm going to go explore the dungeon by myself!"

I actually had a player do this once. He took off to go into the dungeon without a map and on his own. He actually got where he wanted to go, but then made a wrong turn trying to get out, bluff and blustered his way out of a dangerous encounter, made a couple of lucky guesses and a couple of lucky rolls, and emerged unscathed. He never did it again.

But while he was doing it, every other player was on the edge of his seat.

I talk a lot about what I call multiple staging, the idea that player characters are involved in different activities in different places at the same time. I wrote a Game Ideas Unlimited article (on Gaming Outpost) looking at it (if you are not a Gaming Outpost subscriber, it is one of several which will soon be reprinted in the forthcoming RoleplayingTips.com CD); it is integral to Multiverser play. I was afraid of the idea when I first encountered it; I'd been in the situation of trying to run games when the party got separated, and the idea terrified me. But I came to realize:

1) It is not actually that hard to do; it is a lot easier if you play fast and loose with time in your games generally, because you can bounce around between characters at intervals which you can easily pretend are balanced. Consider the timelines in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. Luke leaves his friends and finds Dagobah; there he finds Yoda, and begins training. His training lasts how long? Days? Weeks? Months? We're given a rather vague impression that he spends a long time working with the Jedi Master, and learns a great deal. Meanwhile, his friends play a dangerous game of cat-and-mouse with Empire pursuers, which cannot have lasted more than a few hours. They then limp to a nearby planet, spend less than a day there, and are captured by the Empire. But Empire forces have only just arrived; and this suggests that very little time has elapsed between the evasion in the asteroid field and the arrival at the planet. Yet barely have they been taken into custody when Luke, fresh from months of training with Yoda, arrives to rescue them. Now, I have intentionally exaggerated the time difference between the two stories; but it's clear that there must be a time difference of significant proportion there. The storyteller in this case has blurred that, so we fail to see the time discrepancy. You can do this in play, if you give it some thought.

2) Everyone is, or should be, interested in everyone else's story. That's one of the critical aspects to making it work. If I've got six players doing different things in different places at the same time, I want them all to be eager to find out what's going to happen to his character next--but I also want them to be eager to find out what's going to happen to at least three other player characters next. In fact, if what you're doing right now isn't particularly interesting to anyone else, it's going to be downplayed significantly. Are you shopping? Why do we have to play this? Maybe we do; maybe there's some reason for it. But nine times out of ten, I'll probably hand you a piece of paper, tell you to write down what you're buying, what you think it costs, and where you're going to put it once it's yours. I'll go deal with players who have interesting stories. Now, if in the course of your shopping you suddenly say, "What I'd like to find is a really nice crossbow with a grappling hook," that might be something we need to play out--but in the main, the things that surface as being important in those situations are also usually interesting. A crossbow-fired grappling hook is a neat idea; and if you can find one, the other players may start thinking about things they could get for their characters when they have the opportunity. Usually whatever the character is doing is going to be interesting; if it's not interesting, usually it can be either compressed into a lot less time or diverted to off-screen usually by jotting it on paper.

3) Even if you're not playing Multiverser, you will often find that multiple staging is an extremely valuable tool in creating adventures. I realized it when I read Dune; and at that moment I saw how it had already been used in The Lord of the Rings. I have since seen it in all of the Star Wars films (especially the combats), That Hideous Strength, and just about every epic tale that I remember. I made use of it in writing Verse Three, Chapter One, and continue to use it in the sequels. You see, if you divide the story up by sending the characters to different places at the same time, you gain a tremendous amount of story tension. In Return of the Jedi, Lando is attacking the Death Star, Han, Leia, Chewie, and the droids are fighting at the shield generating station, and Luke is engaged in a battle of nerve, wits, and skill with Vader and the Emperor. In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf vanishes and fails to return on time, and we worry about where he is even when we get glimpses after the fact; then when the fellowship divides, the story flashes between Merry and Pippin on the one hand and Aragorn, Legalos, and Gimli (and the reappearance of Gandalf) on the other, and we are wondering for perhaps ten chapters what has happened to Frodo and Samwise; then when we return to them, as glad as we are to know their story, we now push on to discover what is happening with the others, with Gondor, with Faramir--more and more places, more and more fragments of the story, more and more stages on which action is happening, to which we eagerly want to return. It drives the story. Referees should encourage it.

I think the example you give of the shopping trip is an unfortunate situation in which the referee handled it badly; that's not to say that I haven't handled shopping trips badly in the past. Hopefully he learned from the mistake and will handle it differently in the future.

But I'm probably way off topic here; you're looking for ways to pull player characters together, and I'm talking about the benefits of separating them.

We now return you to your originally scheduled thread.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungI talk a lot about what I call multiple staging, the idea that player characters are involved in different activities in different places at the same time.

I remember first coming across this idea, expressed in strictly movie terms, in the Land of Mystery game suppliment. there, they solved the problems of possible character seperation by having players create secondary characters -- so every player was involved with every scene, but only one of each player's characters was a true protagonist with a story. the GM's job included "film director", cutting from scene to scene (and occasionally creating cliffhangers.)

Ars Magica sort of does the secondary character thing, too, with the grogs. everyone can do something in each scene, even if that scene isn't about their character. I like the idea of secondary characters being "group property" better, though. I had problems getting players interested in the Land of Mystery approach.

For the Rolemaster pirate game, Run out the Guns, they suggst an idea for combat they call cascading. In this style of combat, insteead of going in rounds, the characters each pair off with a badguy, and complete that encounter before going on to the next pair of opponents. The idea is that by allowing the participants of the combat to be more continuous (interrupted for less duration), that they will narrate better, and make for more a more enjoyable scene for all.

In other words, they noted how concentrating on fewer actors at one time actually made play all the more compelling for everyone watching. Play that always tries to include everyone is bound to be dull. Further, there is a notion that by officially placing a participant in the role of Audience, that they automatically just pay more attention. As a dormant actor in a scene, players tend to get much more bored.

Mike

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonEven in traditional fantasy games, no one's dumb enough to say "Hey, I'm going to go explore the dungeon by myself!"  

Hmm, in our game, we have two characters who do this frequently; it is in-character. The GM rotates to their scenes in turn, just something we do. Thinking about it, it is probably because we have seen this in films, read it in books, plays, etc.

Part of the "boredom of downtime" is mitigated in our group in giving some players a game enhancing task. One of our players is a rules maven who maintains consistency and handles the initiative system. One of our players is an artist and sketches scenes and monsters. Some use "sidestage" time to quietly eat, write or read.

Making phone calls and playing computer games has proven to be too disruptive and has been explicitly banned.

Just to follow up on some things that were brought up.

QuoteHeck, I might use that for my game, modified a bit, since I like seeing players handing out XP awards to one another and "competing" in a good way to get them from each other.

Greyorm, I would be interested in hearing how you decide to implement this, and how well it works. I am still several months from any possible playtest, so the validation of my ideas will take a while.

M.J. Young wrote:

QuoteBut I'm probably way off topic here; you're looking for ways to pull player characters together, and I'm talking about the benefits of separating them.

Not at all, the whole concept of "must have characters together" was something I needed to examine. Fragmented character-group play can be done, and can be very successful. My own preference is that player to player interaction, via their characters, is more engaging that constant character-npc play. Besides, anything that reduces the burden on the GM is a plus in my book. What I would see as being really cool, is two players that have separated characters, but choose to made decisions (while still remaining true to their character concepts!) that will bring the characters together, in a hopefully dramatic fashion (the just in time rescue, the case of mistaken identity, that sort of stuff). A lot of advice for making this happen is at the "GM advice" level. That means that I either need to incorporate this advice-to-GM in the game material, or support it through mechanics. So the question is, as a designer, what can I do to promote this type of play, and not really "as a GM, how can  I do this?".

QuoteIn other words, they noted how concentrating on fewer actors at one time actually made play all the more compelling for everyone watching. Play that always tries to include everyone is bound to be dull. Further, there is a notion that by officially placing a participant in the role of Audience, that they automatically just pay more attention. As a dormant actor in a scene, players tend to get much more bored.

An excellent counterpoint to the "keep them always together" notion I had. This is can be just as problematic, most evident in combat. Combat is usually time intensive, and if your character's best tactic is to run away from danger, than this might lead to some seriously boring times. In the end it all comes down to maintaining player interests. As far a proportioning player time, I will need to try this out in actual play. Moving quickly player to player, or reaching some resolution point with one player before moving on. I'm suspecting that the later will be more effective, but timing will be critical.

QuoteSome use "sidestage" time to quietly eat, write or read.

Clearly a matter of preference. When I play a game, I want to play a game. Be it involved directly through the character, or as a spectator to something very interesting. I don't come to games to read or chill out on the sofa. I can do that at home.  Naturally, I'm pushing for a game design that will accommodate my tastes. That said, this thread has been very helpful and got me thinking and reevaluating some of my old assumptions. If someone else wants to add anything, please do (or send a PM), but otherwise I think that for the moment I got what I needed from this thread to put me back on track. Thanks.