Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Judd, December 19, 2005, 08:40:44 PM
Quote from: johnmarron on December 21, 2005, 11:18:14 AMDavid, That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, but I don't see the need to "stick a number on each". John
Quote from: Emily Care on December 21, 2005, 11:35:36 AMAnd in both these games, it is the GM's responsibility to keep everyone on target, to provide appropriate adversity so that the issues and aspects folks have chosen will sizzle not fizzle.
QuoteQuoteI guess the question is, don't you feel that individual players have responsibility to the positive experience of the group as a whole, and not just to their own short terms whims?Now that's an interesting question, and may be a good candidate for AP discussion. Techniques can be designed to give players the tools to author their compelling stories, but how are they wedded together & what kind of long-term commitment do they impel people to make?
QuoteI guess the question is, don't you feel that individual players have responsibility to the positive experience of the group as a whole, and not just to their own short terms whims?
Quote from: RDU Neil on December 21, 2005, 01:05:53 PMI think I find the bolded phrase above to be the most problematic. What is "appropriate adversity" is never as simple as it sounds. Who determines the level of appropriate? If the player is put out by what the GM provides, is the GM supposed to change to appease the player? Player goes with the GM? Who makes the call? [/qupte]Simple answer: group as a whole. More complex answers I'm going to want some more actual play to talk about. Going off the cliff into ultimate abstraction may not help us here. Anyone got stories of when the "appropriate adversity" didn't work out? (I know you do, now spill!) QuoteCreativty within boundaries should also reflect shifting Flags within boundaries... player's should have a holistic sense of the game and play within those boundaries as much as the GM should use those boundaries to "keep everyone on target." That's a large part of what Chris and I were saying above -- the ability to shift flags (and emphasis on flags) durring play is an important part of the process. If you get flags that you're stuck with forever and ever it can suck bad. But if you can get rid of or change your flags in various ways, then it lets you open a communication channel with the GM. I have an AP example of this one. In an Exalted game I was GMing I had a player who had a massive Valor score (5, I think, which is as high as you can get as a mortal). As a result I was often hammering on the character's courage, putting her to the task about "will you stand up to this? for this? what about that? for which? what about when it costs this? when that?" The player had a lot of fun with this, for a time, but eventually got tired of it and wanted a change. She wanted to dump down her Valor score and buy up her Compassion and start to have challenges related to love and peace -- basically doing an Asoka story. (Vicious warrior king becomes compassionate Buddhist monk king, for those without the India fascination.)So one day we're about to start playing, people are spending their Xp, and the player says to me, "How much does it cost to raise Compassion" and I say "X amount." Then she makes a face, looks at her sheet, and says, "And how much can I sell off dots for?" I am at this point not paying attention and say, "You can't, really. The system doesn't allow for that." So she unhappily sets about raising her Compassion, about half as much as she wanted to, and leaves her Valor really high. As a result, I start pounding on her Valor again. She isn't so happy with the game, but luckily focuses her anger on the system rather than me. We're talking about game later and suddenly she's saying how much she hates the Exalted system – which is really new for her. So I start asking why, and she gets into the inflexibility of stats and the XP system and such. I say something about charms and game balance, and she snaps, "No idiot, I mean in the... the... author stance things that make the game run Nar!" This from a woman who had been pretty hostile to the whole talk of Nar and stances and such. We finally figure out what is what, and I let her sell off Valor 2 to 1 for Compassion, and she resets her sheet the way she wants. I look at her new stats and then start to hammer on her Compassion. She is happy. I am happy. Yay. This is why I have a growing fondness for games that have ways to mess with your "flags" in a more free manner. Be it Burning Wheel's trait votes, With Great Power's ability to shift your focus attribute between games, or Shadow of Yesterday's keys, the ability to move those things around is a key element in keeping the channels of communication open.
QuoteCreativty within boundaries should also reflect shifting Flags within boundaries... player's should have a holistic sense of the game and play within those boundaries as much as the GM should use those boundaries to "keep everyone on target."
QuoteSimple answer: group as a whole.
Quote from: Brand_Robins on December 21, 2005, 01:41:14 PMSimple answer: group as a whole. More complex answers I'm going to want some more actual play to talk about. Going off the cliff into ultimate abstraction may not help us here. Anyone got stories of when the "appropriate adversity" didn't work out? (I know you do, now spill!)
Quote from: Storn on December 21, 2005, 02:19:05 PMBut the above answer nails it for me. Stakes can create investment for everyone at the table. If we are all interested in the "Vampire getting Bearded in his lair" then everyone is paying attention, everyone is contributing... even if it is with quiet,tacit aproval of the Stakes being set between GM and Player X.
QuoteAlso, that prompt of coming up with the Stake forcing me as a GM to be more clear about HOW i'm percieving the current situation. Always a good thing to strive for. How can Players make informed choices if their GM is vague?Hmmmm.... Informed Choice. That is what excites the Player side of me.
QuoteAssuming that one player choosing to set Stakes interests or demands the investment of everyone at the table. This could be true, but just as often not. That tacit approval could actually be somone to shy to speak up or just not caring. We can't assume that Stakes will drive player involvement any more than task resolution and "oooh he missed his roll, what does the GM have happen?" drives player interaction.
QuoteExample: A player wants their character to enter the fray by swinging on the chandolier with such amazing grace and aplomb that not only do they get a typical combat advantage, but they win the hearts of the ladies and the admiration of the men for their daring do! As a GM, I reply... ok... but if you fail the task... it may hurt your combat situation a bit, but win or lose the fight the charater is humiliated... utterly a laughing stock for many adventures to come." Thus, the player can choose to go ahead or say, "Man, the idea of role playing out being a laughing stock just sounds totally unfun... I retract my Stakes."
QuoteI would argue that it is not "always a good thing" to have clear Stakes vs. uncertainty. They are both valuable commodities in a game. See my thread on Stakes before Sim... Dramatic, involved games have tension... but where that tension is derived can be fun or uncomfortable depending on the situation and player preferences. By saying "Informed Choice" excites you, you are indicating that you prefer Stakes Tension compared to Uncertainty Tension.
Quote from: johnmarron on December 21, 2005, 11:18:14 AM1. Own a whorehouse.2. Heroic despite others' expectations.3. Master the arts of necromancy.4. Stay alive.
Quote from: Adam Dray on December 22, 2005, 03:43:49 PMBut then I look at Dogs in the Vineyard and wonder if that's true there.
Quote from: Brand_Robins on December 22, 2005, 04:19:53 PMDogs has flags, they just aren't as strong or direct as those in other games. Relationships and traits often tell the GM something about the kinds of choices players are going to want to make. For example, in my online Dogs game there is a female character who has a relationship with another woman that is set at something like "The girl that wanted me to stay with her" and is explained as the Dog's (chaste) love that the character fled from because she wasn't sure how to deal with her feelings in the context of her faith.
QuoteThis also becomes a circular prosses as you go on. Dogs come into those preset situations, pick up fallout and do judgement and the GM watches what fallout they take and what judgements they make. He then pushes on those. Every judgement you make in Dogs is a kind of flag: because its a signal to the GM "push this issue harder in the next town." It's just that the flag comes up in play, in that fruitful void at the center of Dogs, rather than beign on the character sheet. I'd say that's fitting, and works, because in the end it isn't a Character Flag. It is a Player Flag.