Hi,

The game group I play with on Thursdays (at least most Thursdays) are on the verge of experimenting with off screen action. However we really are stuck on how to go about this and I'm a little stuck on how to use this stuff. The current idea is to use the forum at my website in some manner.

First I guess I should explain the game we are playing. It is called Conspiracy of Shadows (which goes to the printer next week) and the best way to sum it up is X-Files meets a world modeled on Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. I am running it like the X-Files TV show with stand alone episodes as well as arcs, all with a running theme.

So basically my questions are:

1) Has anyone tried to do this, how did they do it and what kind of success have they had?

2) Any suggestions on how to handle conflict resolution since we will not be all online at the same time?

3) The game mechanics support a level of Player control of the game world, but the lion's share is on the GM (me), so does anyone have any suggestions on how to use what comes out of the off screen action with/in the on screen action?

I'm sure I have at least one more question to ask, but these are all I can remember for right now. Thanks.

Keith

Uh, what's "Off Screen Action?" I've never heard the term (and to boast, that means that probably few people have). Do you mean "down time," as in time between adventures? Or just play between face to face sessions?

Mike

I believe he's talking about injecting "backstory" between sessions.

I've done this in a campaign, when there was a fairly large infodump from a NPC to one or more PCs and none of us were that interested in playing it out.

Sometimes you can get people to use forums or other resources to post in-character (half of my current party has in-character blogs, for instance). Most of the time people try to avoid events which would need conflict resolution, and instead use this kind of thing to set up conflicts for the next face to face session. My personal take is that you're best to not try to play outside of play, but do things that don't impact System much like conversations and planning.

I thought about that, but then why would you need resolution?

I think we still need clarification. FWIW, I think that there are a lot of good things that you can do effectively between sessions.

Mike

Hi Bob.

I'm not sure if I'm on target here, but it sounds a bit like...

Blue-Booking: A term originated by Aaron Allston (or at least his playing group) for a role-playing technique in which the actions of individual characters, especially out of combat and away from the main character group, are described in writing rather than speech. If this is done using a school exercise book or similar, a permanent log of the character's fictional life is thus created. Blue-booking allows for character development and minor "solo" plot activity without distracting the GM unduly from the main, group-based, plot. It evolved from the note-passing common in many playing groups as a means of dealing with individual character actions of which the rest of the PCs are unaware.

Many playing groups who engage in Blue-Booking enjoy it immensely, and regard it as a major refinement to role-playing. However, it can be criticised on the grounds that it de-emphasises the "social group" aspects of the game, and may lead players to shift from interactive gaming to a highly self-indulgent form of solitary fiction writing.

(From rpg.nets essays)

Hi,

The idea behind the experiment is for the Players and GM to work through what goes on for all the characters between episodes. I'll try and clarrify. What I mean by Off Screen Action isn't down time as in "XYZ is going to spend the time between adventures making magic mushrooms or something" Rather it is more like activities (adventures might be a better term) that the protagonists (Player characters), antagonists and the supporting cast engage in when not on screen (a live game session). This can cover any activity and even group activity that the Players and GM want to engage in.

The idea isn't just to create backstory or to handle individual actions, but to cover that as well as possible group activities that occur when they are not on camera.

Does that make sense?

Keith

I'm with Mike on "why do you need resolution", but I'll go a bit further on asking crazy questions: Have you considered not actually describing off-screen action, but rather agreeing that the characters have done something that has known consequences, and leaving it ambiguous what it was.

Example in a fantasy setting: You end one session with the characters just having gained the notice of the local baron. You begin the next session with one of the characters being knighted by said baron "for his brave and selfless actions on behalf of our people and our King". Maybe one of the other players narrates that the knighting is complicated by the fact that the characters arm is broken, and in a sling.

With your group, would this benefit from a description of the orc attacks that the character fended off, and how he did it?

I play with people who would look at that and say "Neat... who cares how he did it, he's a knight now... that means he can openly court Lady Whassername. Won't Lord Whosisface be steamed to have someone horning in?" But that's obviously not going to work for all groups.

Hi,

The group I play with is probably more interested in the how XYZ became a knight than the actual state of being a knight.

One of my reasons behind trying this exercise/experiment is to help the players get used to taking more narrative control over the game. I guess one of the problems, which leads into the reason for a need for conflict resolution is that I was asked, "How do we resolve character XYZ getting into a tussle with villain ABC?" My response was, "Uh I dunno. Let me see if I can find an answer to that one as well as some ideas on how to do this."


Keith

Okay. So something is at stake that means that it would be poor form (or otherwise violate the Social Contract) to have XYZ unilaterally say "I have a fight with ABC, and I win". Yes?

If you can verbalize specifically how that would be unacceptable, it would probably help us to understand what level of conflict resolution you need in these Off-stage stories.

For some games it might be essential to have objective resolution of how many mooks XYZ killed, and in what manner he fought with ABC. For some games it might be enough to objectively judge "This mission was a success" and let XYZ's player fill in all the rest of the details. Resolving either more or less detail than you need to is probably wasteful or irresponsible (respectively).

I don't know if this will help, but how about assigning "spheres of authority" where players are free to change things at will?

For example, Adam is a baron and owns a small estate. He's free to narrate goings on at the estate, so long as it doesn't directly involve other PCs or previously established NPCs (except for the estate staff and peasants, etc.). So Adam could be free to create a scene in which he and his men-at-arms defeat a group of bandits who work for the main bad-guy NPC in the adventure. It had never been established that the NPC had bandits working for him, so this is kosher.

Different spheres of authority could be assigned to different players based on their character's history, abilities, etc.

Okay, well I think the problem is best explained this way:

1) The Group as a whole develops various assets together in part of the character creation. These items (contacts, allies, retainers, mentors, real estate, etc) were developed collectively giving everyone a vested interest in them so all activites that may affect them I think need to be group decisions.

2) Each of the Players have also created items individually which fall into their own domain, but could be affected by the actions of other players.

These two items bring up the issue of what kinda stuff would be acceptable for the Player(s) to simply detail and what would require some form of resolution that would be fair to everyone that has a vested interest in the item (people, places and things).

See, "spheres of authority" already kinda exist based upon the character creation process and the "pilot" adventure. So it isn't a matter of assigning it so much as a way to resolve any overlap in a way that is fair to everyone involved.

Keith

Hi Keith,

Why not assign a number Director Points to each player. Then let players write whatever they think fits their character between sessions and assign their DPs to having some advantage carry over to play sessions. Only those things cemented with a DP have any effect on play sessions.

You might also consider letting assign DPs on the fly, during play, drawing from the background they've written.

OR, you might skip the prepared background part and let them spend a DP in play provided they come up with a plausible explaination.

Hi Alan,

Well there is already a mechanic in the game like that which we are using for a reward. It is called Destiny Points and when a Player takes narrative control over some aspect of the game or invokes the setting in a creative way they gain a point for the episode. When they spend one they gain an additional D6 to their die rolls (base mechanic is A+B+2D6=result). The plan was to give out a Destiny Point for what they did off camera as well.

I think our biggest issue is how to resolve conflict when one person's actions impact another person's items (assets, npcs, etc). Perhaps some sort of challenge mechanic so that the GM and Players can put the kybosh on the activities of another Player when they conflict with some one elses sphere.

Keith

Why not just require that the two players associatied with the affected items must agree? Nothing wrong with a little communication between players. Just allow players the option of recovering DPs used on items lost between sessions so they can use them on something else.

I see what you're talking about in general. Are there any limits on what is "allowed" in terms of play between sessions? That is, are some things just not kosher for a player to attempt? For example, if I wanted to go back to that monster infested crypt that we'd just escaped from, to see if I could find more loot, would that be kosher?

If anything is allowed, then basically the only difference that I'm seeing between what you're calling "Screen Time" (play face to face) and "Off Screen Time" is that you're not physically together?

Or is it something like that you as GM don't have an "Adventure" running at that time?

Mike

The one problem with simply having players agree that I see is that the one player I know is very much a "my stuff" sort of guy and has trouble relinquishing (sp?) control to others.

The only real limit on what is allowed would be earth shattering events (go kill the big bad, discover who is really behind the plot, burn down the town, etc).

Keith