[Rifts] Two and a half sessions at Odyssee Con, Berlin

[Glendower]

That's a good point, Rob.  I've been playing a lot of the Indie games these days, which has altered how I view the distribution of responsibility at the table.  I also think the language I'm using isn't quite clear. 

When I say collaborate I mean everyone at the table suggests moods or styles before play begins.  You know, the standard discussion of "wouldn't it be neat if we were all ex army buddies" or something similar.  The GM can take inspiration and ideas from the players during this discussion, it makes his job easier as he can find hooks that engage and involve the players.   That kind of open communication allows people to not only get their idea of fun heard and understood, but they then know what everyone else thinks is fun. 

I like the idea that the responsibility of everyone at the table is to ensure everyone at the table has fun, including themselves.  To take your analogy, even a cook could use someone to peel potatoes, or stir the batter.  Food that I've helped prepare always tastes better, and everyone pitching in means a less tired cook. 

This helps when designing play.  Giving players options is fine, but it helps to know what options they'd go for. 

[Settembrini]

When I say collaborate I mean everyone at the table suggests moods or styles before play begins.

This is totally bonkers for a Con-Session. And most real groups I know, subconciously settle in for what the DM has in store for them simply by agreeing to the game played.

Wanna play Cthulhu?
Well...
Wanna play Blue Rose?
Well...
Wanna play Twilight:2000?
Hell, yes!

That's how reality works.

[droog]

That's how reality works.

Your point about con games is fair enough (though I think people have run eg MLwM including creating the Master and Minions, for example, at cons). As far as continuing group play goes, however, it's fundamental to some games, such as Burning Wheel or Sorcerer, that there will be talk about the game beforehand to fix on details of setting. So that's how some of reality works, you might say.

[Settembrini]

So that's how some of reality works, you might say.

Well, of course I'm talking about the adventure gaming context.
The cited games are designed for player input and minimal prep time. Those are different animals.

[droog]

This is a big digression from your actual play, and I'll take it to PM. Please excuse me.

[Settembrini]

I never fully grokked the three Creative Agendas, therefore I renounced them to be of any practical value, and I personally think they don't cover what I get out of the hobby.
I realize, that this is not the place to argue about that.
I also realize, that only actual play can be categorized into the CAs, not systems.

So here is my request:

Please analyze my actual play, and tell me what CA our game was. I will not "fight back" or "argue". I just want to see the methodical tools of the Big Model in Action. Maybe you (all who care to post) can even convince me of it's merits. I will be reading with an open mind, and am looking forward to your analysis.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Andreas,

That's best suited to a new thread, I think. I'll need a couple of days because other threads are occupying a lot of time.

Best, Ron