[TSoY] I fought "The Party" and "The Party" won

[Joel P. Shempert]

Just so you know, I never saw us as battling. 

Well, I was being a bit snarky about it there, but. . .I definitely felt like it was a struggle, even if it wasn't against each other.

Peace,
Joel

PS. Did you mean the next time prepping for a con comes up, you're going to do a new thread about that? Or were you still going to post to the thread here in the near future? Just curious what I should be waiting for.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Joel,

I really, really do plan on finishing that post...

And you asked for examples of moving slowly with a player. So, when that happens, I'll make note and post about it.

CK

[Marshall Burns]

Joel,
I wanted to mention something that struck me while reading this.  Here's an extreme simplification of one thing that you mention happening in the game:

Player: "I want to protect the Zaru."
GM:  "Okay, here's some Zaru that need protection."
Player: "Oh, okay.  Guess I'll protect them then."

Correct me if you never called that a Bang, but, man, that's not a Bang.  What I mean is, where's the choice?  She wants to protect Zaru, she has the opportunity, and there's no reason to do otherwise.  No choice at all there.

This is a Bang:

GM:  "Okay, so, you want to protect the Zaru, do you?"
Player: "Yup."
GM:  "Really?  Even when [insert risk or consequence]?"

(Erm, that is, it's a Bang when you enact it, not when you say it)
The choice is what it's all about.  There has to be a reason for NOT to do it, as well as a reason to do it, plus maybe reasons to do other stuff that nobody ever saw coming.  The risk or consequence also has to be relevant to the character AND the player to make the options actually options, actually things that might be chosen.

Just an insight I've been clued into from reading your posts (the OTE stuff too) and "inventing" Narrativist play on my own with The Rustbelt.

-Marshall