Splitting up The Party [split off from Midnight to HQ]

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Tell me if this sounds familiar: a player not in a scene says, "Use your stoneskin spell." and the GM tells them to shut up.

I've heard of this, but never played in a group where this was done.  It sounds horribly unfun.  

Well, it's key to some people's enjoyment, actually. Just because you or I find it odd, doesn't mean that it's not what works for some people.

Do you think it works for entire groups? All I've ever heard seemed to imply that it's usually enforced by dominant individuals for their personal enjoyment, most often struggling, adversarial GMs who can only "control" their groups that way.

Maybe hardcore Gamist groups who are playing in a competition at a Con? Or hardcore Simulationists who want the player to "be the character"?  

Keep in mind, I'm not providing you with an innately superior way to play - just one which I think you personally will enjoy more. I'm sure I've gone overboard in my presentation, so my apollogies.

Not at all, you've been very factual. My reaction was as much to previous descriptions of "shut-up" play I've heard/read about as to your comment.

But you do have the restrictions in question, which is interesting. Instead of trying to mute the talkative players, channel them. First, scene play should do this pretty well to start. But ask these talkative players to help the other players through their scenes. Once you put the burden on them to help (not replace) the others, their input will become positive.

I was thinking of "positive" input that went overboard, in which less self-confident players found certain actions dictated to them so strongly that they never thought of not obeying - but then often either the player who was being pushed ended up putting their foot down, or other players intervened and told the little dictator or manipulator of the moment to go away.  And it doesn't happen all the time, so we don't have restriction in place as such.  They are spontaneous reactions to certain tendencies in certain players.

And I'm betting that it's these players who least like to do "split play?" Since it means a definite reduction in spotlight time for them? If you employ them as mini-GM's and player-helpers, they'll be more engaged overall.

No. One hated split play, the other loved it.

Or do you have a quiet player who doesn't like to be out of a scene? I know that type, and it's a whole nother bag of problems.

Fortunately not.

It would in fact be good if we were disagreeing. I wish somebody would  come in here and tell me that I'm incorrect on a lot more so this would be less a teaching thing by me, and more a way to find new things out.

Hey, let's talk about that Sex keyword thing. You might find me disagreeing with you there.  (Although who knows. You might end up convincing me again, dammit.)  

I personally haven't the time to be that smart, so I go for the shotgun approach. But he's right that if you can insert these things selectively, such that they aren't problematic with some of the previous notions of how people play, you can still manage to show them the way you want to play less "painfully."

But you do this at the risk of being too subtle, and the point being missed. I am not about the subtlety. But that's just my style.

Got your point. I'm from North Germany, so subtlety isn't my natural approach either... Probably that's part of why I like your advice not to sneak up on the players.

"Are you sure you don't want your character to go to the park where Bob's being beaten up? I mean it's probably on your character's way home. Maybe he wants to see the birds or something? That way your character can taunt Bobs. Cool? Or do you want your character to continue straight home?"

Note how odd it is that it's OK for the GM to create "coincidences" in most play, but not the players?

Indeed. Your approach also relieves the GM of the burden of having to pretend that the "coincidence" is all natural and plausible in IC terms with no story relevance whatsoever... I like it.

[Mike Holmes]

Do you think it works for entire groups? All I've ever heard seemed to imply that it's usually enforced by dominant individuals for their personal enjoyment, most often struggling, adversarial GMs who can only "control" their groups that way.

I give the benefit of the doubt to any style. That is, there are certainly dysfunctional versions of any style. The only question is whether a style has a funcitonal version, and I assume that most do have one. In fact, I assume that my personal bias means that I am not fit to judge the functionality of styles that I don't prefer. That is, it would be all too easy to assume that a style of play that I didn't like existed only in dysfunctional format so that I could then tell people not to do it, and to play my way. But that only leads to people who like the style doing the same thing with my style. So why bother? The only thing that really matters is that one recognize what's fun for themselves.

Hey, let's talk about that Sex keyword thing. You might find me disagreeing with you there.  (Although who knows. You might end up convincing me again, dammit.)

Sounds like a new thread. But tell me if you think that men and women should have the same "Give Birth to Child" ratings.

Anything more needs discussing about the thread, topic, however?

Mike

[Kerstin Schmidt]

No more questions at this point.  I'm hungry to play after all the coolness above and in the related threads - unfortunately due to individual schedules, that ain't gonna happen until late January.  I'll report after the game.  

Let's call this closed.