The spicey die roll - Middel Earth (home brew) Sim

[Ar Kayon]

You make many thought-provoking points, and I think reflecting upon them will help me make the intentions of my own game clear, especially in regards to encouraging a coherent worldview between GM and players.

[David Berg]

Hi Jay,

For now I'm making no assumptions about what the rules in this sort of game ought to manage, and about what a text ought to cover.  Social stuff, conflict resolution, task resolution, drama, fortune, karma, guidelines, suggestions, inspiration, story structure, activity structure, turns, play modes, taking breaks, mood music... it's all on the table, as far as I'm concerned.  (I'm sure I could whittle that list down somewhat, but I'd rather wait on that task.)

During play itself, attention is kept largely on the immediate action.  Sights, sounds, actions, etc.  There are few pauses for explanation of the people, places, events and stories that are glimpsed only partially.  When play finally ends, the players do what fans of any mysterious TV series do: they question, theorize, interpret and predict.  "Why did that happen?  Did it mean X?  I bet Y is up to Z!  Maybe when we go to A, we'll discover B!"

Indeed it is much like you describe, but you miss by half!  This process goes on during<

I have no idea if this is vital to our discussion here, but I just want to understand you clearly, so I'll ask:

The questioning/theorizing/etc. that goes on during play -- is this in character, and regarding only stuff that is relevant to the characters?  Whereas the pre- and post-game chat is likely to involve purely player interests which would be mere trivia to the characters?

It is really interesting to hear you call the questioning/theorizing/etc. "the central engine".  By that do you mean that it's the fuel for player-initiated situation creation?  As in, "Having processed that last event, I'm now interested in going to Spot X on the map and attempting to accomplish Y!"?

As opposed to the GM dropping clear "next thing to do"s in front of you, which obviates any need for questioning/theorizing?  (Of course they could still do it, but it wouldn't influence meaningful decisions as much.)

Rules that foster character POV . . .
Source material is everything!  . . .  History!  Maps!  Relationships!  Social institutions and mores ...and of course juicy conflict . . .
Critically important - avoid offering absolutes . . .

I hope you will forgive me for skipping over this for now.  These are some excellent observations that totally apply to my own play as well... I'm just worried about too many topics in one thread at one time to manage!  Maybe come back to it later?

Quote from: Silmenume on February 02, 2010, 02:27:15 AM

Quote from: Silmenume on February 02, 2010, 02:27:15 AM

Quote from: Silmenume on February 02, 2010, 02:27:15 AM

Have what they say matter.

This means that their statements feed back into play in a relevant way.  If this is the GM's means of gathering fuel to populate the game with events and opportunities and obstacles, great.  But if he already has those set up, he's going to have to ask just the right questions in order to get answers he can then incorporate.

How does this generally work in your game? 

I'm skipping your ranger baton example, as I think that brings up a whole other issue of how large-scale setting facts get established.

Quote from: Silmenume on February 02, 2010, 02:27:15 AM

I'm going to cut my reply here and address the remainder of your questions in a follow up post.

Sounds good.  I'll-

	Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development