Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by David Berg, November 04, 2006, 09:25:56 PM
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 06, 2006, 11:42:26 AMWhen someone "gets in a good one," or when a session is deemed particularly good due to character actions, what did they do?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 06, 2006, 11:42:26 AMYour discussion of the pre-confrontation dialogue leads me to think that the GM is strongly-committed to a given set-piece location for a given session, and that the players are generally OK with that.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 06, 2006, 11:42:26 AMIn this case, your alternative plan was adopted. I noticed, however, that technically, your plan was not treated as a full alternative.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 06, 2006, 11:42:26 AMThere seems to be a general understanding that a given session or mission must involve a multiple-round fight with other individuals. Do you think this impression is correct?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 06, 2006, 11:42:26 AMMy impression is that the strongest character-decisions in your group concern tactics - choosing when to utilize a particular power, choosing how to time a particular action or to deliver some key dialogue. In other words, operating at a fairly small scale (i.e. options during a fight, perhaps some deployment right before one). Is this impression correct?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 06, 2006, 11:42:26 AMWhat personal, real-person strategy and guts are involved during conflicts during play?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 06, 2006, 11:42:26 AMIs it possible that personal strategy and guts are not as important as providing the color and verbal/symbolic responses during a fight?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on November 06, 2006, 11:42:26 AMYou mentioned that John is highly focused on being "most effective," but the example you gave has nothing to do with effectiveness, just with a minor choice of phrasing. Can you give an example of John being maximally effective during play, such that I get a more general idea of what you mean?
Quote from: David Berg on November 06, 2006, 10:39:36 PMCharacter improvement:3-8 points per session is the norm. John's had a lot of risky solo ventures (mostly fights) and has generally been rewarded with extra points. Matt also stated an intent to have a "bonus point" each session go to someone who solves a certain puzzle, but I don't know if this has actually been happening.
QuoteImagine a little platform made of green-painted wood, standing a few inches high off the ground on its little legs. That's Exploration, the necessary imaginative communication for role-playing to occur at all. Perhaps it's a very pretty shade of green or particularly well-crafted in terms of pegs and glue. Doesn't matter. It's not the Creative Agenda.Now imagine a secondary wooden structure built on top of it, reaching a whole foot off the ground at its tip. That's your game in action. Whatever shared goal or priority puts it there, or (in the analogy) whatever shape or material it is, that's your Creative Agenda. It's what you and the group do with the platform. A Simulationist CA happens to be made of wood and happens to be painted green. That's why people are always mistaking Exploration for Simulationism, when it's not. It's still a secondary structure on top of the platform. It also so happens that Gamist and Narrativist CAs are always brutally, recognizably distinct from the platform that supports them - made of plastic or aluminum, and always painted a different color or not painted at all. That's why people are always forgetting that no matter what, those agendas need the platform too.Andreas, I'm going through this kindergarten imagery because, in your post, I see a lot of rhapsodizing about "wonder moments" and all that. I anticipate that you are going to claim that's some kind of Simulationist presence in your group. Well, if you think that's Simulationist, lose that mistaken idea right now. That's foundational Exploration, the platform. Maybe your group's CA on top of it is "the same stuff," and hence Simulationist, and maybe it's not. We have to look at it to see.That's the point from 2001, the essay "GNS and other matters of role-playing theory."Now it's 2006 and I have the Big Model. CA exists as the goal or priority that ties together the features of the Big Model, during play. So the question about your game is (a) whether you guys had any goal or priority tying the Model of your play-experience together, and if so, (b) what was it? And no, you can't point at the platform. We're talking about the thing you all built on top of the platform, what you do with it.