Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by hyphz, January 31, 2003, 08:25:11 AM
Quote from: Ron EdwardsJason, it sounds to me as if you have some assumptions about GMing and the GM's notes. Your posts say, to my reading anyway, that the process is either referencing a flow chart, which to me includes arrows and "go here, then there, or here" kind of planned directions, or it's improvisation. You also suggest that the chart is very useful while GMing in the way that Fang is talking about.All of the above is my reading of what you've presented. If I'm wrong, let me know.
Quote from: Le JoueurWho said anything about 'going without crutches?' I'm not communicating here; I already suggested character hooks and 'neat turns' (or twists) in a list. How is that not a valuable tool, a crutch if you will, for improvisation?
Quote from: Le JoueurThen get rid of the "flow" in your chart, the "and then this" part, because that's where it stops being improvisation and starts being control. (For that matter, throw out the "chart" part too, because a chart implies positional relationships, almost as much 'flow' as before; the only chart that might be handy is one that implies relationships rather than order.) There is nothing 'organic' about putting events in a predetermined order. An 'organic' list of hooks and turns would be almost deliberately out-of-order; this I suggested.
Quote from: Le JoueurThat's fine; you can run a game any way you want. Until I've completed the description of 'shared control' gaming, tossing in 'use this to Transition to rollercoasterism' won't do anything but obscure the understanding of 'shared control' gaming. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Transition, I invented the term after all. You can't Transition from a form until you can do it; I think a thread about Transition would be excellent, just not here. I'm trying to keep this thread on track to explain what is apparently a really tricky gaming technique.
Quote from: crucielQuote from: Le JoueurUntil I've completed the description of 'shared control' gaming, tossing in 'use this to Transition....' ...I think a thread about Transition would be excellent, just not here. I'm trying to keep this thread on track to explain what is apparently a really tricky gaming technique.You're dead on. I was offering up a solution to the 'what if I can't?' and 'what if they won't?' questions. But, in doing so I went and introduced methods for Transition, or even more complicated...So you're right, I'm gonna drop it. I'm very interested in seeing where this thread goes, and I don't want to see it lose focus either.
Quote from: Le JoueurUntil I've completed the description of 'shared control' gaming, tossing in 'use this to Transition....' ...I think a thread about Transition would be excellent, just not here. I'm trying to keep this thread on track to explain what is apparently a really tricky gaming technique.
Quote from: crucielI think you hit the heart of the dispute with your comments about 'organic'. I see two valid approaches to such a chart (at least two that we are discussing), but there is a big difference between the two of them:[list=1][*]A chart of events and turns that might happen pieced together in a logical chain...but leaving some options open.[*]A chart starting with a single event (or hook) that grows outward based on 'what if the players do this? or this? or this?' ...Trying to account for all the variables of player actions...doing your best to predict the future[/list:o]I'm suggesting (2), and I think you are seeing (1).
Quote from: clehrichI'm not going to say that I hope you're someday soon going to cobble all this together into an article. I'm going to say that you will do so. Yah yah, job wife kids, blah blah, excuses excuses.
Quote from: clehrich1. Every now and then, in anything but a freeform one-shot, you're going to want something predetermined. I realize that the basic point of shared GMing is, if I understand you right, precisely that you don't do this, but every now and then there's a reason to.
Quote from: Bob McNameeRegarding the Deathstar...If it were me and I really wanted to have a Deathstar (while not being sure exactly what it was), I'd do a Cut Scene very early on...Leia in Vader's custody arrives to be questioned by Tarkin the commander of the DeathStar...[/list:u]or even better,The Vader choking scene in the meeting room concerning the missing plans, Technology and the Force...[/list:u]As GM I still don't know what a Deathstar is...or where it is...just that it's a terrible weapon.
Quote from: clehrichOne example would be when the story in an extended campaign has just turned temporarily into a mystery: who whacked this dude? You don't have a precise answer to that, you don't have a complete story of how it happened for them to go dungeon-crawl-hunt-for-clues on, but there is something you have decided on about this.
Quote from: clehrichAlternatively to continue the SW example, suppose I thought of the Death Star as a way-cool idea, and had an NPC mention it pretty early on so everyone would know about it. Now I really don't want to railroad more than I absolutely have to; the one thing I need (for whatever reason) is for them to go to the Death Star. I don't care why, I don't care whether they blow it up, I don't have a map of it, nothing. I just need them to go there.
Quote from: clehrichAgain, if I hear you right, you would say that such railroading is very, very dangerous, because it encourages GM-control backsliding, and encourages player passivity. What you have here is a major point that is invented by the GM and not the players, which is in itself problematic. So do you have any advice for sharing the game with them when there is one thing you just have to get to?
Quote from: clehrich2. I think I get your point about sharing vs. Director Stance. You don't need to be open with the players about what you're doing as such, you just need to share with them and flirt when they won't share back. Is that more or less right? And can you explain flirting a bit more?
Quote from: clehrich3. Can shared gaming go well with Director Stance? I think your point is that it's not about stance, and that telling the players, "You will write the plot now" is intimidating and counter-productive. But does this approach work well when the players do jump out and direct? Is it best if it's done like the Confessional in InSpectres, where Director Stance is done in-character, or does that matter?
Quote from: clehrich4. Does shared gaming help with immersion? Not that immersion (I mean players being "in character all the time") is necessarily the goal, but does this promote that style of play?
Quote from: clehrichWhile I hope you'll remark on those questions above, it looks to me like I should read more or less everything on the Scattershot forum, then ask questions. So I have a question: where do I start? It looks to me like the Gaming Model thing should perhaps be first, but what then? Since Scattershot is an emerging game, not a done deal that can be referred back to, a road-map would really help me a lot.
Quote from: Le JoueurReally, this is how I've been gamemastering and prescribing gamemastering for almost a decade. I'm surprised that this time everyone loves it.
Quote from: hyphzBut it took time and I don't think I'd have been able to do it on the fly, which is my ongoing worry.
Quote from: clehrichThe only thing that bothers me here is that it sounds so damn easy.
Quote from: hyphzSo, I'm getting the ideas here, liking them, and I'm gradually coming up with a bandolier (I *love* that metaphor) for my UA game. And I just want to clarify the sort of things that can be done here. (If you want to know the stuff I have so far I'll post it, but I don't think it's relevant to the general discussion, especially since Star Wars is being used as the yardstick example.) I know you can have characters and things on it, but can you EVER have scenes on the bandolier at all or does that lead to railroading? Moreover, how deeply can you define the characters on the bandolier so that their interactions don't become completely predictable and create predefined scenes? What is the distinction between a scene and a 'bang'?
Quote from: hyphzSecondly, what kinds of 'little stuff' can you put in? What I mean by 'little stuff' is that the players suddenly go quiet and frozen and you don't exactly want to toss in one of the big items [because, 1) it'll make the plot look disjointed, and 2) you'll run out of big items too fast], but you need to stir things up. The obvious thought I have here is PC action consequences, because you can't run out of them (even doing nothing might have consequences for the PCs) and they create coherentness rather than disjointedness; but as you don't know the PCs actions in advance, consequences have to be generated on the fly rather than pre-prepared. So, is there anything you can pre-prepare and slip into the bandolier for this sort of situation?
Quote from: GreatWolfSo don't be afraid to say, "Duh" and gather your thoughts. Maybe it will only take a few minutes. Maybe you'll need to think about it longer. Just be honest and upfront with your players. We all have creative lapses, and I think that your players would rather wait for you to gather yourself then be artificially railroaded down a path that they do not wish to take.
Quote from: clehrich"The Insidious Doctor Fang and His Zeppelin of Doom."...Setting aside Ken's usual railroading practices, does this fit into the Sharing concept?
QuoteI'm dubious about the synchronicity of the heavy's name....
Quote from: clehrichJust one thing:QuoteI'm dubious about the synchronicity of the heavy's name....Eh? Lost me there.
Quote from: hyphz(I couldn't get Trigger Events out of them for love nor money.. well, one of them, the Punisher player, said that 'His wife and children had been killed by criminals' which is at least a motivation to act, if nothing to do with the occult. Nobody else could think of one that was sensible. ("Once I was kicking a guy's teeth in and after about five minutes I realized that he was really hard and there was an unknown army around.")(One beef I have here with the gamebook, is that I showed them the examples. Problem is, they are written by professional writers who know the setting. All they did was intimidate the players.)