Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Paul T, August 07, 2006, 04:37:05 PM
Quote from: Dav on August 08, 2006, 11:15:22 AMQuoteI've since gently pointed out to him that the scene he's hoping for is hardly guaranteed to happen.This is where my brain skipped a beat.All right, here is the Thing... [...] your player specifically said that he and his character wanted to participate and even possibly direct Scene X! Your Job, as GM, is to make that happen.You two should be conspiring to work at this, not mentioning it and separating.
QuoteI've since gently pointed out to him that the scene he's hoping for is hardly guaranteed to happen.
QuoteTo be honest, his lack of colorful descriptions and narration is MUCH less important than this.
QuoteI realize I have a whole mess and passels of general ideas on how to run and create a game for your players and their characters, but, in my defense, I run the best damn games you ever did see (often due to players that "get it", but also because, well, I know how to hook 'em, and I know how to get my players to conspire WITH me, rather than AGAINST me, tres` important).
Quote from: Paul T on August 02, 2006, 03:07:51 AMFrom there, play progressed very smoothly. I decided that I would try to get each player to frame their own scenes, and was surprised by how easy and natural it felt. It was something I'd read about before, and it always sounded very scary and artificial on paper. However, it turned out to be very similar to what I had been doing as a GM for years--I would turn to each player and it would go something like:--"What would you like your character to do now?"--"I want to confront the Captain of the Guard about [...]"--"How do see that happening?"--"Well, maybe I'm walking by his tent and find him eating breakfast..."--"Perfect! Let's go!"
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 08, 2006, 07:25:11 AMOK, that was the easy paragraph, and I know it didn't answer your question. Here's the basis for my answer: I'm also pretty sure that you think that giving up those reins also means giving up situational authority and content authority, and that's what I want to concentrate on now.[...]And similarly, like situational authority, content authority was left entirely to my seat at the table. There was no way for a player's narration to clash with the back-story. All of the player narrations concerned plot authority, like the guy's mask coming off in my hypothetical example above, or in the case of the Jasmine game, the one suitor becoming a popular rather than sinister guy through his actions.[...]But it is a technique of a specific game, and not even a required one within it. It does not exist in The Pool's rules, and in fact, is defined out of them given the rules that are there. (Many people think The Pool is some kind of free-form, make-it-up, la-la kind of fairy role-playing. It's totally not. I claim it's as rules-heavy as Phoenix Command.)
QuoteGiving an MOV is like taking control of the game for a few moments. You can describe your character's actions, the actions of those around him, and the outcome of those actions. You can even focus on less direct elements of the conflict such as what's happening in the next room or who's entering the scene.
Quote from: Darren Hill on August 09, 2006, 03:41:45 PMYou'd need Situational Authority to say, "while they are sleeping, an assassin slips into their room and tries to kill them." Right?
Quote from: Darren Hill on August 09, 2006, 03:41:45 PMWhat authority would you need to choose which enemy was attacking? Would Situational A. be enough, or would you also need Plot A.?
Quote from: Darren Hill on August 09, 2006, 03:41:45 PMAlso, could you say that a character who had previously been an ally was attacking? Would you need Content Authority for that, or would Plot A be enough?
Quote from: Darren Hill on August 09, 2006, 03:41:45 PMWhat authority would you need to declare the reason for the attack?
Quote from: Darren Hill on August 09, 2006, 03:41:45 PMLet's say they defeat and capture their assassin. What authority would you need to be able to say, "this former champion of an evil god is so impressed by our honour that he changes his ways and becomes a good guy" ? Is the changing motivations of characters during play covered by Plot or Content authority?
Quote from: Paul T on August 08, 2006, 03:48:40 PMI see both of these categories as sort of hierarchical. My view on this is as follows: * The players hold the bulk of Situational and Plot authority. I, as GM, can fill in Situational and Plot stuff when the players feel uninspired, but will defer to them when they DO have something they want. * In the same way, I, as GM, have Content and Narrational authority, but the players can fill those in when I'm uninspired ("Does the blacksmith have a hammer on the wall?" "Uh, sure,"), but will defer to me in those arenas.
Quote from: Web_Weaver on August 12, 2006, 08:54:12 AMHi Paul,I think you need to reread your stated views with a clearer definition of authority.[...]For instance, It seems to me you want to have Situational Authority, after all its who decides in the end that counts, and you did have problems with the "I run to the woods" situation which implies you want to have the final say. Sure it may be your aim for players to suggest situations, but this isn't the same thing.
Quote from: Paul T on August 12, 2006, 01:42:01 PMPlot authority, frankly, I find rather confusing, so I'm not sure what to say here. I know that in the last session of the game I exercised fairly little of it and I enjoyed play more than in the second session, where I'd exercised a lot of it.
Quote from: Paul T on August 07, 2006, 04:37:05 PMPossible solutions include:* The "No Myth" approach, if I understand it correctly--anything not yet introduced in play is not part of the picture, period. The GM's back-story is merely a collection of material he or she would like to introduce to play. If the players' contributions make that material impossible to include, the preparation is wasted. (An example of this is "Bangs" prepared by a GM before play. Some may be ignored, others may never get "thrown in" at all.)* Social contract: The players agree not to improvise content in certain areas of play. (This sounds a little problematic to me, being kind of hard to define.)* All backstory is known before play begins. There are no "GM secrets".Any others?
QuoteIs it even possible to separate them in any meaningful way in play? Isn't there tons of overlap between those three types of authority?