Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Reithan, September 10, 2008, 11:57:50 AM
QuoteI plan on having this game, unlike the last, have a 'planned' storyline and a predetermined end-point, ...That being said, I am still NOT planning on having this turn into any sort of railroad, and want to leave the plot as completely mutable by the player characters.
QuoteI don't have a lot of background running games where the plot has endpoints laid out, as my previously run games (there've been only about a dozen, actually) have mostly been run as a sort of cause-and-effect reactive string based on whatever the characters do after the initial setup and lead-in. So, any tips here would be very helpful.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 11, 2008, 11:07:44 PMWhat I don't get is why you don't just run the game with Brian and Charles alone, especially since they're the ones all jazzed about the setting. To take the most obvious if not currently-problematic example, why'd you even call that ex-group guy? He sounds like a disaster. You say you have no compulsion to keep people in the loop, but if that's the case, then that little interaction need never have happened, and your mention of the other two players seems like a non sequitur.More close to home, and uh, not really to cause any problems, but it's not clear to me why you're including your wife. I mean, she's already started to carp in exactly the way you anticipated. "I also invited this person who always sticks her fork in my eye." Um, why?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 11, 2008, 11:07:44 PMYour prep is both impressive and slightly intimidating. You are going hog wild with the source material, and that can be a good thing or a not-good thing. ...So, since you're dealing with insanely complex history and nigh-equally insanely complex game-book source material, it seems like trying to draw anything you can find into things might not be the way to go.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 11, 2008, 11:07:44 PMOy, veh! "I plan to serve a vegetarian meal with a specific and perfectly timed dessert course ... but oh yeah, everyone can eat whatever they want." Isn't the basic contradiction apparent?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 11, 2008, 11:07:44 PMI did this a lot, back in my Champions days. I prepped in five-session sets (keeping in mind that our content/events per session were very, very high, especially for Champions), and usually I had a pretty good idea of who they'd be confronting in the fifth part, where, and under what basic circumstances.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 11, 2008, 11:07:44 PMSo as far as tips and advice are concerned, I recommend loosening up the planning. Perhaps instead of planning endings and story-arcs, you might do better to look at the amorphous play you've done in the past and consider how to "screw down" the existing tensions and possible adversity that get generated as you go. That's how climactic confrontations and shattering outcomes can arise through play itself.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 11, 2008, 11:07:44 PMRelationship maps may not be the tool you're looking for. They are not, for instance, running records of how all the characters "relate" to one another in terms of feelings or organizational memberships. They're a lot more basic: more like family trees, linking characters primarily through ties of kinship and sex.
Quote(...) all of these are ways to "play the characters" in tandem with the players who allegedly "own" these characters. In Participationist play, this is a given, and in many ways it relies on open trust, not deception. They have to accept that their characters are being team-played, and to appreciate your commitment to the characters' status as protagonists.