Hey
I finally got around to posting some of the variations on The Pool. Check it out here! (http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepoolvariations.html)
If I've left some out please don't be shy. Let me know it so I can get them all online.
Also, I'd like to link to any games that are either directly inspired by The Pool or that use The Pool's mechanics, such as Hard Travellin' (http://www.edromia.com/games/hobo/index.html). So if anyone knows of one, fire it off.
One last note. A lot of what I posted was taken directly from the posts here at The Forge. I made no effort to spellcheck...sorry. Maybe later. Heh.
Thanks to James for uploading The Puddle (http://www.randomordercreations.com/puddle.pdf) which is our groups take on the Pool.
It will be a few weeks before I run with these rules again. In the meantime I would welcome any comments or feedback other Pool players may have.
A whole month and not a single response?
Jeez, I was hoping to get a least one. Dissapointing.
Hey Cassidy
Basically, thems the breaks when it comes to anything indie/small press. Par for the course, so to speak. Try posting a new thread regarding The Puddle and ask specific questions. You'll get some responses I'm sure.
Here's my feedback: I like the Puddle pretty much.
OK, what else do you need to know?
Now, here's a question for you. In the Anti-pool, do you think that the reversal of the dice reward effects will cause play to be too back and forth about a center? Or will players have differing lengths of slides up and down, some of which will result in low times for the character, and others which will result in periods of triumph? IOW, will the dramatic pace of The Pool be improved degraded, simply changed, or remain unchanged by using the Anti-Poool mechanics.
Mike
I've never played the anti-pool variant so I can only speculate on how it may play out in practice.
One of the aims of anti-pool was to address the issue of thrashing whereby players found themselves with little or no pool dice and effectively 'deprotagonised'.
To be honest I never considered this to be a big issue for a couple of reasons.
1) Thrashing can have a positive effect on play. It can promote an element of adversity within the game that can be used to create memorable and exciting play.
2) Crashed dice pools are offset by the fact that players get their dice pools reset to 9 at the start of the next session.
Anti-pool really puts a whole different spin on the gambling mechanic insofar that anti-pool players need to be very selective about when to use their pool dice on a gamble.
Gambling pool dice is a real fun part of pool play and whenever players roll the dice they are doing so to achieve success because they want to make stuff to happen storywise.
I think that in anti-pool players would gamble less often. In addition I suspect they would achieve fewer rolled successes than they would with the standard pool rules.
In another thread I tried to get a feel for how many dice rolls were made on average by each player in a session. I think the average was around 5-6 with 2-3 of those rolls being ones that the player felt compelled to gamble pool dice on.
Assuming that dice pools in anti-pool start at a minimum of 9, and assuming that players may only be making a handful of rolls during a session that they feel are significant enough to gamble I would expect players to still feel protagonised enough during anti-pool play on the rolls that matter to them.
They may on average achieve more failures than in the standard pool rules but most of those failures will be on rolls that weren't crucial to the player and are likely to be rolls that they did not gamble on. When anti-pool players need to make a roll that really matters to them they should still be able to invest a reasonable amount of pool dice to give themselves a good chance of success.
If I were playing anti-pool then at the start of the session I would be extremely cautious with my pool dice and definitely only gamble when I thought success was absolutely critical or when I felt that I absolutely needed to make a MOV.
As the session drew on I would be a little more free with my gambles. I would probably start gambling 1 or 2 dice if important, but not critical events presented themselves.
I would always aim to keep a reserve of dice in my die pool (say 4 or 5) just in case something happens right at the end of the session that requires me to go for an all out gamble. Whatever happens next session I'm back to 9 pool dice anyway.
Anti-Pool ranks pretty high on my list of playtest priorities, but since I haven't yet played it I can't say for sure either.
It does seem logical that players would be less inclined to gamble if they knew a success meant lost dice. Depending on how the rest of the game is handled, this could be good or it could be bad. Can't say either way.
One thing to note: the rule that dice pools are reset to 9 was not in the original rules. Mike suggested the Anti-Pool variant based on the rules that left Pools dangling from session to session.
Quote from: James V. West
One thing to note: the rule that dice pools are reset to 9 was not in the original rules. Mike suggested the Anti-Pool variant based on the rules that left Pools dangling from session to session.
I was going to point that out as well. The reset does change things dramatically. Using Anti-pool, I'd probably advocate not having the reset, though some people might want to keep it. Basically I'd guess that having the reset would cause a "use em or lose em" attitude as you suggest, Cassidy, which would be more episodic. For more serial play, I'd let the pool just stay where it was. That way players would have to think in terms of the long haul.
This might be problematic in terms of development for that option, now that I think about it. As more of a resource that needs to be spent fairly regularly, the only time that a player will have a lot of dice to trade in is following a series of failures (or at least no successes with gambled dice). This might be rare. OTOH, a player can engineer a "learning" period for a character by simply never gambling and calling for lots of rolls. One could even rationalize the learning coming from the failures. I'd say that even gives some incentive to fail which is cool for balance. Essentially players would "self-thrash".
The thrashing issue was only what got me thinking about the Anti-Pool, actually.I agree that Thrashing isn't bad, dramatically speaking; what I think is bad about it is the loss of player control over the direction of play. The dice are meant to randomize the dramatic pace, but also give the player come control. The thrashing phenomenon seemed to take the player largely out of the equation.
So what the Anti-Pool hopefully does is to allow players to retain their "vote" in the pacing of the drama at all times. Post success or post failure. In any case, players will Self-thrash for another reason, that being an attempt to get back to a higher level of dice pool after depleting themselves. I can spend five dice in one action, but that'll take me at least five rolls with no gambling to get back.
I agree on your analyses of the effects on pacing almost completely.
Anyhow, thanks for the comments. Now I owe you; what can I comment on about the Puddle? I'll offer this one comment unsolicited: I like the character enumeration system as it allows for much more fine delineation. Do you worry that characters will have too much success with five dice traits withought using their pool? Or is this intended?
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesDo you worry that characters will have too much success with five dice traits withought using their pool? Or is this intended?
A +5 trait is the max, which equates to a 40% chance of failure without gambling any dice. I think that's a significant chance of failure. Players will still be reliant on their pool dice to shift fate in their favour even with a +5 trait.
When I was running my initial sessions using the standard pool rules I found myself usually handing out 2 GM dice, sometimes 3, rarely 1. After a time I became aware that I didn't want to hand out GM dice because I wanted all the influence on the outcome of a roll to be entirely in the hands of the players by using their pool dice.
Also, most character traits were +1's, a couple of players had a single +2 trait, no-one had a +3 it was too costly. This made it difficult for players to quantify the relative importance of each trait to their character in terms of trait dice. With a bunch of +1 traits it was difficult for me and the players to get a handle on what made the characters tick. I felt that traits needed a bit of granularity (a) to provide variety to the characters and (b) to help focus the players attention on the key aspects of their characters.
So I decided to ditch GM dice and expand the range of trait values to give the players more to think about when they were defining their characters.
Working on the assumption that I was handing out on average 2 GM dice and that most traits would be +1 I figured that the average trait value would be about +3, the maximum +5, and the minimum +1. Seemed simple enough.
With 20 points to start with and having players define 6-10 traits at startup I figured that only 1 or 2 traits would be +5 which is equivalent to being given 3 GM dice to accompany a +2 trait in the standard pool rules.
I realised that initial Puddle play would generate more chance of player success than in standard pool play because of the way the traits are weighted. Overall though I think that effect is marginal.
Ah, I'd missed the "no GM dice". Probably just assumed it was in there, when it wasn't. Your rationale for level seems sensible, then.
However the GM dice are a great way for the GM to have an input into what's happening. If the players are doing neat stuff, the GM gives dice. Play blah, and the GM can tell you by not giving dice. Why is that something that you want to get rid of? Actually I'm more sympathetic than I sound, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.
Anyhow, that turns the table on my question, so I'll ask another. Do you worry that traits at only +1 will have too little effect (not to mention "unskilled" attempts).
And what else do you want to talk about regarding the game?
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesHowever the GM dice are a great way for the GM to have an input into what's happening. If the players are doing neat stuff, the GM gives dice. Play blah, and the GM can tell you by not giving dice. Why is that something that you want to get rid of? Actually I'm more sympathetic than I sound, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.
I wanted to maintain an air of impartiality when determining the outcome of a roll. Any influence I wanted to impart to the game I wanted to do through actual play (i.e. narrative). Using GM dice to sway events one way or to reward play wasn't something I felt comfortable doing.
In the Puddle the ability of players to guide events is not dependent on rolling successfully as it is in the standard pool rules. Players can choose to guide an event if they gamble dice AND they roll a positive outcome. In all other circumstances the GM can choose to guide the event or they can allow the player to do so. GMs choice.
Play blah and the GM is not likely to let you guide an event when you don't achieve a positive outcome. Play positively and even when you don't achieve a positive outcome the GM may still let you guide the event. That's the incentive for positive play.
I really did not want players with low dice pools and valuable story ideas to be restricted from guiding events simply because they were struggling to roll successes. That is what seems to happen in the standard pool. They had good ideas, rolled a rare success, but chose to take a die instead of making a MOV. I wanted to be able to let players run with their story ideas, let them guide events at key moments without them being dependent on the luck of the dice to do so.
The dice primarily provide a cue to GM and players as to the nature of the outcome, be it positive, negative or uncertain. Who actually gets to guide the event really depends on circumstance. If you've gambled and got a positive result, then you get to guide the event, otherwise the GM decides who guides the event.
Quote from: Mike HolmesAnyhow, that turns the table on my question, so I'll ask another. Do you worry that traits at only +1 will have too little effect (not to mention "unskilled" attempts).
Even if a player ends up rolling just a single die and they don't get a positive outcome the GM can still let the player guide the event if it makes sense to do so. The player may not be able to guide the event exactly as they would like, however they are having an effect, thats the important thing.
With just a +1 trait and no gambled pool dice a player would have roughly a 16% chance of a positive outcome, a 16% chance of a negative outcome, and a 67% chance of an uncertain outcome.
Guiding an "uncertain" outcome gives the GM and the players considerable freedom to put their own spin on the outcome of an event. For example, a character could achieve an "uncertain" outcome and succeed at what they were trying to accomplish but have some other another complication arise. Alternatively their "uncertain" outcome may yield a spectacular failure or even a resounding success with a nasty twist. It really all depends on what the person guiding the event wants to see happen.
Quote from: Mike HolmesAnd what else do you want to talk about regarding the game?
The standard pool concepts of success/failure seemed a little misleading in practice since players seemed to equate success/failure with win/loss, which isn't what the dice rolling in the Pool is really about.
To that end I used three types of outcome, i.e. positive, negative, and uncertain rather than referring to rolls as being success or failure.
Is this an unnecessary complication?
Hey
Sorry I haven't participated in this conversation. This was SPACE weekend, so I'm a bit rough around the edges. When I give this a full read-through I'll actually post something useful ;-).
Sorry not to get back to this. I really have a problem with how these fora are tagged.
Quote from: CassidyThe standard pool concepts of success/failure seemed a little misleading in practice since players seemed to equate success/failure with win/loss, which isn't what the dice rolling in the Pool is really about.
To that end I used three types of outcome, i.e. positive, negative, and uncertain rather than referring to rolls as being success or failure.
Is this an unnecessary complication?
I think it's actually quite a nececessary complication. For the reasons you cite, and more. But I'm not sure that your terms are much better. I've felt for a while that this needs clarification. If the player is making the narration that pleases him, how can that be "negative"?
Mike
Not the easiest terms to roll off the tongue, but aren't we really talking about:
Resolving, Complicating, and Deferring.
I like those. Not quite the same, but:
Yes
Yes, and
Yes, but
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesI think it's actually quite a nececessary complication. For the reasons you cite, and more. But I'm not sure that your terms are much better. I've felt for a while that this needs clarification. If the player is making the narration that pleases him, how can that be "negative"?
Well, obviously it isn't "negative" for the player however I was careful to define 'positive' and 'negative' outcomes as being relative to the character and not the player.
In the Puddle I defined a negative outcome as one that was
'detrimental or unfavourable to your character in some way'. A postive outcome was defined as one that was
'beneficial or favourable to your character'I hope that during actual play any opportunity to narrate or guide an event is a chance for the player to add something to the story that pleases them regardless of the actual outcome they are narrating.
The outcome of a dice roll acts as a creative spark for the players to aid them when narrating an event. Either they narrate something positive happening to their character or they narrate something negative happening.
It's a bit like coming to the bottom of a page in a book insofar as you don't know what is going to happen until you turn the page. Sure, of the many possible outcomes you may want some to occur more than others; however until you actually turn the page you have no idea what the eventual outcome will be. Either way, good or bad, positive or negative you do know that whatever happens will impact the story and serve to drive events forward oftentimes in unforseen ways.
For me, rolling the dice is just like turning the page in a book.
Quote from: CassidyWell, obviously it isn't "negative" for the player however I was careful to define 'positive' and 'negative' outcomes as being relative to the character and not the player.
Hmm. Actually, I do remember reading that, now, and liking it (I've always been of a mind that to give it to the player completely is problematic, at least with MoDs). But how is it not Win/Loss? That seems exactly what it is.
Do you mean it's not task resolution?
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesDo you mean it's not task resolution?
Absolutely.
Quote from: The Puddle: Chapter IIDuring play events will arise where the outcome is either in doubt or the event itself is potentially a key turning point in the story. Events can be very broad in scope, for example, "Do I manage to win the duel" or "Do I evade my pursuers".
An event can be a conflict where the outcome is likely to be either success or failure. It can be a specific situation with a number of possible outcomes, some good and some bad. An event can even occur as a result of someone asking a simple question such as, "What happens next?"
When the GM feels that an event could have an important or significant effect on the course of the story they will ask you to 'roll the dice'.
Right, but that's assumed in the normal rules as well. What's different is that what you have is Conflict Resolution, as opposed to The Pool, which has, essentially, Narrator Determination.
IOW, what you have is still, in a sense, win/loss in terms of the Conflict. As such, any of those terms should work fine.
What The Pool needs to do, IMO, is to get away from using terms like Monologue of Victory that could be interpereted to mean win/loss, when that's not at all what they mean. A player recieving a MoV can, in fact narrate a loss, or a negative result if he likes.
I assume that's not an option for the player in The Puddle. That would be the role of the MoD, right?
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesRight, but that's assumed in the normal rules as well. What's different is that what you have is Conflict Resolution, as opposed to The Pool, which has, essentially, Narrator Determination.
IOW, what you have is still, in a sense, win/loss in terms of the Conflict. As such, any of those terms should work fine.
There is a subtle difference in the Puddle in as much as dice rolls are made to determine the outcome of "Events" rather than "Conflicts". I think I only use the word Conflict once in the entire text and deliberately use the word Event multiple times.
Rolls are made when the direction of the story could go one of many ways; when you need to know 'what happens next?'. This doesn't necessarily mean that there is a "conflict" within the game that needs to be resolved, or that a sense of win/loss, success/failure will be the outcome of the roll, although that will certainly be the case with certain events.
For that reason using the word Conflict did not seem to fit. Likewise the terms Success/Failure, Win/Loss, Victory/Defeat didn't fit either. I felt that I needed a catchall that could encompass all those terms without being narrow, hence Events, and Positive/Negative/Uncertain outcomes.
You are right that a dice roll in the Puddle does serve as a means to determine the outcome of an event which is not the case in the Pool. I wanted the dice roll to deliberately act as a guide for the players to aid them in the course of their narrative, i.e. narrate something positive happening to your character or narrate something negative.
I still wanted the roll of the dice to act as a means of determining who gets to narrate. If you gamble dice in the Puddle and achieve a positive outcome then you get to narrate a positive outcome to the event for your character. As in the Pool if you want to narrate then you gamble dice, the more dice you gamble the better your chances of narrating.
It's worth noting that a positive outcome does not necessarily mean success in terms of the immediate event being resolved.
In a fight to the death a character could roll a positive outcome and then choose to guide the event in such a way that their character is beaten to within an inch of his life. However he puts up such a valiant fight he earns the respect of his foe and the story continues.
Even though the character lost the fight the player can choose to guide the event so that the outcome is essentially positive for the character.
I see what you're getting at. Interesting that there's no option for an event to be "neutral" to the character.
That said, your definition above illuminates, but also makes some trouble. The leeway you give to the player might make the distiction between positive and negative moot. For example, if I can say that the negative result of an Event is that my character gets a hangnail in the process of killing the villain, then how "negative" is that really? I understand that it's for inspiration, but is it for inspiration only? Are there no controls other than "try to be positive" and "try to be negative"?
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesI see what you're getting at. Interesting that there's no option for an event to be "neutral" to the character.
Thats what "uncertain" outcomes are for.
The outcome of an uncertain event is just that; it's uncertain. It could be good for your character, it could be bad, or it could be neither.Quote from: Mike HolmesThe leeway you give to the player might make the distiction between positive and negative moot. For example, if I can say that the negative result of an Event is that my character gets a hangnail in the process of killing the villain, then how "negative" is that really? I understand that it's for inspiration, but is it for inspiration only? Are there no controls other than "try to be positive" and "try to be negative"?
There are no controls. Not "hard" systemlike controls in any case.
There is no, "If you ignore these rules, the GM may end your MOV at any time." as there is in the Pool.
Players need no encouragement in narrating a positive event. If anything, it is entirely possible that a player may overstep the mark and narrate a positive event too positively and in a manner that either detracts from the story or defies in game plausability.
That's why...
It is the responsibility of all players to portray their characters realistically and fairly based on an understanding that the primary goal of game is for everyone to work together to create an interesting and engaging story....is stated as being the primary goal. Idealistic? Almost certainly. It really depends on your group of player and whether they are in total as to the primary goal. The collaborative development of an engaging story for the enjoyment of the other players is one reason WHY they should be playing the game. If it isn't then the Puddle really isn't going to work for them and the game will in all probability fall short of everyones expectations.
Can players derail the game if they don't agree on that primary goal or have different ways of achieving it that conflict with one another? Sure they can. Solution? Wrap up the game and play the type of game they really want to play.
As to a player "underplaying" a negative outcome. I should point out that in the Puddle a player is only ever be asked to narrate a negative outcome (or an uncertain one come to that) at the GM's discretion.
If you as GM see that a player inevitably narrates negative outcomes that (a) aren't suitably negative, or (b) do not adding positively to the story, or (c) are not enaging to the other players then you don't have to ask them to narrate.
Some players are really good at narrating negative outcomes. Some don't like doing it at all. Some are totally crap at it; it really depends on the group of players. As GM you do what you feel is best for the story and the enjoyment of the other players. If that means not asking a player to narrate negative or uncertain outcomes then thats what you do.
At the end of the day I wanted the GM to be able to let a players guide any event when they felt that the player had something really good to contribute to the story.
That is why in the Puddle I explicitly stated that the GM can choose to allow players to guide an event even if the outcome of their roll was negative or uncertain. That option is not present in the Pool since players can only narrate when they make a successful roll and choose to forfeit a pool dice from the GM so that they can make a MOV.
That's all cool. I'm not disputing that it can work. I just didn't get all that from reading the text. You're general info on how to guide an event is well written; perhps you should make a note there on how responsibility applies to positive and negative.
Re-reading the rules more closely, I see where the miscomminication is coming on the whole Uncertain issue. I was under the mistaken impression that players narrated Negative results (like they would with an MoD). And so I wondered why they couldn't also do the "uncertain" events themselves.
But I see your split better now. Much more traditional. Players narrate Positive Gambled rolls, GM does Uncertain, Negative, or Positive Non-Gambled rolls. That totally makes sense to me. The Players are advocates for the character, the GM is the advocate for the rest of the story.
But then I'm confused by your response above about a badly portrayed negative result by a player. Did I have you confused as well? Or am I still confused? :-)
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesBut then I'm confused by your response above about a badly portrayed negative result by a player. Did I have you confused as well? Or am I still confused? :-)
I'll try to clarify as best I can.
Quote from: Mike HolmesBut I see your split better now. Much more traditional. Players narrate Positive Gambled rolls, GM does Uncertain, Negative, or Positive Non-Gambled rolls.
Almost.
Quote from: The PuddleIf you gambled any pool dice AND achieved a positive outcome then you get to guide the event or you can let the GM do so, the choice is yours.
If you gambled pool dice and did not achieve a positive outcome OR alternatively you did not gamble any pool dice at all then the GM will guide the event; they may however let you guide the event if they wish.
Rolling the dice in the Puddle determines the outcome of an event, be it positive, negative or uncertain. However it also determines who gets to
choose who narrates that outcome.
Players can
choose who narrates on Positive Gambled rolls. The GM can
choose who narrates on Uncertain, Negative, or Positive Non-Gambled rolls.
Essentially what this means is that anytime the GM feels the player should narrate an event or needs to narrate an event they simply tell them to do so.
This is a key difference between the Puddle and the Pool. In the Pool players can narrate when they roll a success and they forfeit a pool die reward from the GM. Player protagonism by virtue of narrative rights is intrinsically tied to the currency of the die pool and to chance. If a players pool is low then their ability to affect the narrative is diminished. I did not want that. I wanted the ability for a player to take control of the narrative to be available as and when it needed to be. I wanted to promote maximum player involvement via their own narrative irrespective of the number of dice in the players dice pool.
Sure, with a low dice pool the player may find themselves narrating uncertain or negative events more than positive ones. However, whenever they get what they feel is a good idea it is always possible for the GM to let them narrate.
If you as GM feel that the player has something that will put an interesting spin on the event that will be good for the story then let them narrate. If you have something that you want to introduce that will bring something cool to the story then you narrate.
It's a "feel" kind of thing. Sometimes a player will roll and then look at you as if to say, 'tell me what happens', essentially giving you an unspoken cue to narrate because that is what they want.
At other times during the lead up to the event it may be obvious that the player is bursting with an idea and is more into the actual story itself rather than their characters role in it. When they are just let them roll and then hand the narrative reins over to them so they can run with their idea.
As an aside, I can recall occasions in games I've played where players and GM discuss an outcome out-of-character in a "what if" kind of way before any dice are rolled; a bit like "Shadows" actually. i.e, If you roll good then X happens, if you roll bad then it's likely that Y happens. Granted, this doesn't happen for each and every event but when it does it is usually a great opportunity to let the player involved narrate irrespective of the outcome.
Quote from: Mike HolmesThe Players are advocates for the character, the GM is the advocate for the rest of the story.
That depends on the GM and to a certain degree the players themselves. The GM can concede advocacy of the story to players
anytime they feel that the players voice needs to be heard. When that happens the players can narrate an outcome that may be uncertain or negative for their characters but hopefully positive for the story itself and for the overall enjoyment of the game by the other players.
I have a feeling that what I just wrote is about as clear as muddy Puddle :)
Actually that does clear things up somewhat.
But this makes the rules very freeform. That is, the dice outcome only tells two things:
A) How things go for the character in a very general and interperable way.
and
B) Who gets to decide on who gets to narrate.
That seems veeery loose. Functional, certainly, but very light in the way of providing direction in play.
Maybe it's just me, but texts for The Pool, and it's derivatives seem hard to write in such a way as to get the idea of how the mechanics are supposed to work. Perhaps it's my traditionalist mind shaping these problems. Next time I'm going to read very, very closely.
I wonder if there's a way to state this sort of thing more succinctly and clearly? Hmmm.
Mike
Quote from: Mike Holmes
But this makes the rules very freeform. That is, the dice outcome only tells two things:
A) How things go for the character in a very general and interperable way.
and
B) Who gets to decide on who gets to narrate.
At face value you are right, it is very freeform. Interpretation is very much in the hands of the person narrating an event whether it be the GM or a player.
The same is true of the Pool which is arguably even more freeform than the Puddle since the result of the dice roll does not require the player to narrate to a broadly defined outcome as it does in the Puddle. The dice roll in the Pool very simply tells you who gets to narrate, not what the outcome is.
Quote from: Mike HolmesThat seems veeery loose. Functional, certainly, but very light in the way of providing direction in play.
Absolutely.
I view the The Pool and it's variant rules as providing a bare framework for whatever game you decide to play.
Reaching a player concensus, groundrules as it were, for what is acceptable and plausible in play (I assume that's what you mean by 'direction') has to come from some sort of pre-play groundwork and/or discussion between the players and the GM.
If I were say going to take a bash at running some Vampire type game using the Pool I could do my own prep work to flesh out the nitty gritty bits of the game "reality". Alternatively just get a bunch of fellow Buffyphiles together, brainstorm for a bit, and then dive right in.
TQB use it's Accord.
Quote from: The PoolOnce your group has decided on a setting you can begin creating characters".
That's what the Pool says.
Quote from: The PuddleIn addition everyone should agree on a Setting for the story. Where will the story take place? What will it be about? What kind of story do you hope to create? What role will the characters play in the story?
That's what the Puddle says. Admittedly it isn't much but then again I don't expect anyone outside my group to even use the Puddle in anger.
Reaching that concensus among the players on the setting is crucial otherwise you will likely struggle to attain direction during the game.
Yes, it is loose, very loose. But with the right bunch of players it can work and work very well.
Equally though with the wrong bunch of players it can end up being a total pile of pants.
What James is doing with TQB is the way to go and what I would love to see more of, i.e. essentially shrinkwrapped settings for the Pool.
Quote from: CassidyWhat James is doing with TQB is the way to go and what I would love to see more of, i.e. essentially shrinkwrapped settings for the Pool.
Agreed. With rules for coming to these sorts of consensuses (consensi?), it all works very well.
Mike
Several people have expressed an interest in doing their own games, which are essentially The Pool with settings. I encourage anyone who wants to do this to do it! I'd love to see some of these ideas in final published forms.
For the record, my wife Dawna is starting to pressure me to get some other priorities out of the way and finish up TQB asap. Gotta love her. As soon as I get certain comics work finished I'll be doing just that.
Great thread, btw. You're poking those neurons in my brain that do stuff.