Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by John Adams, December 13, 2006, 12:12:18 PM
Quote... falling into Incoherence, which is when the players stop trying to communicate their creative interests to each other and acquiesce to communicating on the techniques level only.
Quote from: Adam Dray on December 18, 2006, 02:22:22 PMI'd like to better understand what you're not getting out of the game as written and why you feel a need to patch it with new rules. If it's not broken, why fix it?
Quote from: Adam Dray on December 18, 2006, 02:22:22 PMThe "swift kick in the rear" language makes me feel like you're trying to trick them or "correct" them. Maybe you're the odd man out and they're having fun as-is.
Quote from: Adam Dray on December 18, 2006, 02:22:22 PMSecond, I'm concerned with your very strong GM controls butting up against all this alleged player authority you're handing out. 1. The GM has ultimate authority over the fiction. What goes in. What doesn't go in. 2. Further, the GM owns the setting and "the story."3. Oh, but the GM's story is subordinate to the players' stories. Right.4. Oh, but the GM should expect the players to take the GM's story in unexpected directions. If he lets them, since he has ultimate authority over what goes in.See where I'm going with that? It seems like you're afraid to really hand over the steering wheel to the players, as much as you want to do it. Is there any place where a player has final authority over the fiction, even over the GM? Do you guys share the GM role from week to week, or are you always the GM?
Quote from: John Adams on December 19, 2006, 09:46:37 AMAt least some of my is concern for the Dream as such. We have a Setting built over 300+ sessions and 12 years of play. That's a LOT of History and backstory and is one of the main draws to play this setting. I read through the public demo of Capes and had a blast; it looks like a really fun Nar centered game with a Balance of Power totally on the player's side and no specific GM. But I also read on these Forums (somewhere) comments the there is no such thing as an established fact in Capes (which makes sense to me given that system). Our Setting has 12 years of established facts to deal with, how do I reconcile that with real player authority? How do we decide "no, you can't change that -- it's an established part of the setting" and how does a new player idea become an established part of the setting? For now, my only answer is to have the Buck Stop at the GM. Ideas?
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on December 19, 2006, 03:40:52 PMA central idea to realize is that while we describe narrativism as "creating story cooperatively" this needs not have anything to do with a no-holds-barred storytelling fest. It is quite possible to "create story cooperatively" with players only controlling their characters and not having a whit of say over the NPCs, Setting or anything else. The narrativism comes from allowing player protagonism through the actions of their characters, not from some vaguely egalitarian freeform idea of "respecting other players' input" or whatever pussyfooting might be on the table ... What genuine player input power means is that you do not undermine the actions of his character ...
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on December 19, 2006, 03:40:52 PMI think that what you write is just an old-fashioned way of saying that the GM controls the setting and you want to have part in narrating character actions (why wouldn't you?) with some muddled stuff about story that you'll discard on your own when you feel ready; if I'm mistaken and there's actually some substance in that part, I'm sure you'll tell us.