Should character control hurt?

[Jasper]

No problem, Jay, just didn't want to muddle the thread.

Ian: definitely true.  I'd just add that it gets even tougher to pull off this balancing act when you start talking about really broad narrative power, like introduction of plot elements.  In my game Graal (hey, I get to trot out another design example!) there are Narrative Points that give just this kind of power.  Now sine they're points, there needs to be some kind of metric for their use -- just how much can you narrate with one point? But how do you measure a narration?  I of course got into some trouble with balancing (you might say 'calibrating') this metric with the other points in the game, in an attempt to say "narrating one 'pretty good thing' is as good as two points of character improvement."  But that was really wishy-washy.  


Oh, while I'm mentioning Graal, it occurs to me that something else the game does is relevant here.  While I do have the narrative points that can be spent to give power or give increased character efficacy, a greater distinction is made between different kinds of characters from the get-go.  Specifically, the main character is by nature focused on efficacy, improving his abilities at a rapid natural pace.  All of the other characters are less effective, especially by the end of the game.  The situation with players is reversed, so that the players of the secondary characters have far more narrative control than whoever controls the main guy.  This kind of system still maintains the player-efficacy-balance issue, but (by itself) avoids points of any kind.

[coxcomb]

In my game Graal (hey, I get to trot out another design example!) there are Narrative Points that give just this kind of power.

D'oh! Every day I learn about more cool games here! When am I ever going to have time to read them all, let alone play them. :-)

Anyway, I like the idea of having a primary character and then giving the other players more directorial opportunities. I have been thinking for a while about the idea of rotating the "star" role for each adventure, to focus on that character's issues (a trick I learned from Star Trek). You r solution sounds like a nifty way to do that.

[Jasper]

I very much like the idea of rotating the distinction.  This sort of relates back to a suggestion that Mike Holmes made back a while ago about reward mechanisms, which was to use spotlight time as a reward.  But instead of directly doling out spotlight time (with points or more informally), we could give out temporary increased efficacy, which would lead to increased spotlight time.  At the same time give everyone else narrative control.  Could work for a lot of games I think.

[TonyLB]

Is it oversimplifying things to point out that most systems of character advancement produce permanent benefits that the player enjoys over and over again, whereas most systems of narrative control produce one-time benefits?

Would the issues be different if the player were buying into an increased amount of narrative control forever afterwards?

[Garbanzo]

This thread is about the division of rewards between narrative power and advancement.

Howzabout narrative control as advancement?



My character has "Shoot Big Gun: 7".
If I fail with my skill, I can spend 7 points (or 8, or whatever) to rewrite the plot around my skill and make my failure as a success.  This will also take my skill up by a point.
This is the only form of advancement.



One application of this would just allow skill successes.  A more Director-sharing game could allow all sorts of things.

Does this do away with the balancing issues, or is this insufficient for what people are looking for?

-Matt

[coxcomb]

My character has "Shoot Big Gun: 7".
If I fail with my skill, I can spend 7 points (or 8, or whatever) to rewrite the plot around my skill and make my failure as a success.  This will also take my skill up by a point.
This is the only form of advancement.

One application of this would just allow skill successes.  A more Director-sharing game could allow all sorts of things.

Does this do away with the balancing issues, or is this insufficient for what people are looking for?

That's a cool idea! Not only does it make advancement player-controlled, but it makes advancement a big deal in the narrative.

To be clear, I'm not "looking" for anything except discussion. So far the discussion has turned up at least two ideas that I think are solid gold!

[Eric Provost]

Erik,

Aren't rewards actually for the player?

Actually Alan, that was my point.  I don't see characters getting rewarded, only players.

-Eric