Telling a Story, Conveying a Theme: What does it mean?

[Eric J.]

Hey, everybody.  This is Pyron.  That's right.  You will never get rid of me.  Ever.  I know I haven't posted in a long time (I almost posted once but a teacher came by where I was working and closed it down- It has a happy ending though.  I got to sit for 40 minutes waiting for the rest of the kids to finish the assignment instead of exploiting school resources) but I've been meaning to.  I guess that means that I've been an off-and-on lurker.  I've never been a good lurker (I'm more of a protoss fan) so I might post a bit more often.  I've been a bussy High School Senior.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I've made (I think) good use of all the stuff I've learned here.  I haven't grown in excess maturity and my group (who I'll still play with for a few more months) has become a little more accepting of my STRANGE FORGISH WAYS.

I'm getting to my topic.  Just wait. BTW- I'm not sure if this belongs in Actual Play or RPG Theory.  I want to discuss the issue more than the background of it.  However, this doesn't change the context that I'm presenting it.  If the thread splits, that's fine.

I'm approaching the end of my almost 2-year (about 4-6 hours per week) weekly campaign.  It's been great.  It hasn't been fantastic by any means but it's definitly been the best roleplaying experience that I've had (maybe five years).  We've had themes and battles, wars, fights.  You name it.

But, as I said, I'm coming to the end.  Of course, this is my Star Wars D6 campaign, a story presented as a tale of a time when the Jedi Order was just concieved.

I planned most of the background of the campaign unilaterally.  That is to say I created most of the world, the NPCs and I've controlled the themes that we've explored without input from my players.  Why?  They aren't confertable with that or they don't understand that idea.  I've told them that I'd like their input and they give me vague or non-responsive answers.  However, they do very well in-game and, for the very most part, they've made their characters very interesting giving them distinct personalities that interacted with eachother in meaningful ways.

Even though my players are resistant to affecting the game (story-theme) in a meta-game way, they've had semi-meaningful impact on it anyway (I think).  For this kind of gameplay, Is this a valid or even a good way to play?  Or should it only be used if your players are resistant to the alternative?

I'm sure that my players have good ideas to contribute but they seem unable to comprehend the game being any other way (I've been told that the overall success of the ending would more-or-less fall on my shoulders.  I've also gotten "It'll be interesting if you do this one thing." When I pressed him for the idea so that I could use it, I was refused.)

BTW- I had a 6-hour session in line for Revenge of the Sith where I was, due to absolutly fabulous luck, able to answer almost all of their questions that they've been pressing me with for over a year.  It was pretty cool.

And as always

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

[Bill Cook]

I've never been a good lurker (I'm more of a protoss fan) ..

LOL. Terran fan here.

Even though my players are resistant to affecting the game (story-theme) in a meta-game way, they've had semi-meaningful impact on it anyway (I think). For this kind of gameplay, Is this a valid or even a good way to play? Or should it only be used if your players are resistant to the alternative?

It's certainly valid. Whether it's good depends on if it delivers the kind of fun you want. Forge average is not sacrosanct. Also, there's no one opposite alternative. Approaches to play are as numerous as hues of color.

The group you describe may not be the one you want to try out new ideas with, but it sounds like in some other group, that might be something you'd enjoy. My group has gone from clinging to D&D and its associated gamerisms (e.g. troupe-style play, plod through the DM's plot, pass notes to sustain super secret sub-plots, jealously guard character abilities and background) to .. shit, it's hard to summarize. We rotate GM's, tour systems, maintain multiple narratives threads, create story primarily from a network of player input and practice full player disclosure while maintaining separation from in-game knowledge.

Coming at them directly with arguments about the superiority of alternative approaches was a waste of time. And it frightened and irritated them. Providing shiny-covered game manuals to read while we played the same way, laboring under the same limitations--that was the ticket. Showing them how new ideas supported new kinds of fun--that made an impact.