Motivational Events and GMs Leading the Story

[Fabrice G.]

Hi,

Daredevil, I think that it all come down to the freedom of choice offered to the players.
In the sherif exemple, if he is found hang up, all players actions are dramatically equals. They made a choice and all choices have a chance to bring good story. For ex. they search who/how/when and that's a cool story (especially if they have authoral power) ; they do nothing, cool stuff too because they had no outside social presure to act, it's really their choice (you can always show them the consequences of thei non-action in another bang...but that's purely optional). In this hang up situation, the players are presented a situation that is less defined for sure, but witch offer much more freedom.

In the shotting exemple, much of that freedom is taken away. They don't have that many options...and some of them just kill the bang. Assuming they do nothing, if what you throw at them after is bad, what you're really saying is : you should have to stop that guy, you didn't now look at the consequences! If they do nothing and nothing happen them it's hardly a bang. So chosing this option not only limit the players, but impers you in co-authoring a good story.

And that is exactly the same for all the exemples Mike presented.

BTW, I think that playing with bang ought to be done with authoring power right in the hands of the players...that's a narativist thechnique !!


Fabrice.

[Daredevil]

I'm actually agreeing with this whole thread on most points -- it's just a few details that I don't accept. That's why I originally said I hope nobody takes it as nit-picking.

Assuming they do nothing, if what you throw at them after is bad, what you're really saying is : you should have to stop that guy, you didn't now look at the consequences! If they do nothing and nothing happen them it's hardly a bang. So chosing this option not only limit the players, but impers you in co-authoring a good story.

I don't see how you would draw such a conclusion -- "you oughtta have stopped the guy" -- from that, unless the attitude around the table is very GM vs players, even if the argument is solid (inaction does often have solid consequences). I don't just see why the matter has to be brought "up from the table", ie. from the in-character-level to the player-level.

I'm willing to admit that there is still that something that I'm apparently not just getting in bang-thinking. This thread did not illuminate what that is, however. I'll keep looking.

[jburneko]

This thread might also help to clear things up.  It relates to specifically to Sorcerer Kicker's but it has stated many times that Kickers are just the first Bang of the game.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1321

Jesse

[Fabrice G.]

Hi Daredevil,

You wrote:

I don't just see why the matter has to be brought "up from the table", ie. from the in-character-level to the player-level.

I'm willing to admit that there is still that something that I'm apparently not just getting in bang-thinking.

Well, that might be exactly you're problem that you've just spot.
Bang are not destined to the characters, but to the players. Using bang, you try to captuvate you players and provide the players an opportunity to make a statement about the character's theme (by adressing the premise of the game, usually).
That's the whole point about bangs. That's why I said that it's a narativist technique, because what the character want to do is almost irrelevant, what matter is what the player want the character to do (and then retroactively designing motivation for the character to act as the player wants).


Well I'm not trying to be "narativist master", but I hope it helps.

Fabrice.

ps: bangs are fully explained in Sorcerer & Sword, a good reading BTW.

[Daredevil]

Little nicky, that may be it. I'll have to think this through once more with focus on that idea.

Thanks,

- Joachim Buchert -