This thread on Monte Cook's EzBoard has got me thinking about how to balance continuity of story against player participation. Many of my experiences as a player (as opposed to GM) have resulted in my not getting to play, or not being relevant to play.

As a GM, I try to make sure that players don't have to sit out for long periods of time, but it's not always easy. I also try and make sure PCs don't become irrelevant. But doing this sometimes means bending the story. Replacement PCs (or PCs of new players, or people who missed the last session) suddenly appear. I usually don't have them arrive in the middle of a combat (though I think I have done that once or twice - and let them save the day).

In some games I will try and work them in. In others, they just appear. In my Fantasy Hero campaign, they would come tumbling through a magical portal, and the rest of the players would exclaim "Damn, that wizard gets around."

On the flip side, I think one reason I never was interested in Paranoia was the fact that it takes this idea to the extreme.

So clearly a balance needs to be sought. And how do you strike a balance when different players have different needs. One player might be happy to sit out for an extended period of time, while another might quit in disgust if they are left out for more than 5 minutes.

Frank

Quick question: Are you looking for answers under the assumption that "the story" is the story the GM has created and wants to involve the spotlighted characters in, as opposed to whatever happens to the spotlighted characters?

Hmm, I guess the "story" would be the one the GM had planned out. Story as "the events that happen to the spotlighted characters" would seem to have less continuity issues, though I guess there could still be an issue if a character was eliminated.

Frank

ffilz wrote: Hmm, I guess the "story" would be the one the GM had planned out. Story as "the events that happen to the spotlighted characters" would seem to have less continuity issues, though I guess there could still be an issue if a character was eliminated.

As long as we're using games as examples, let me suggest that Multiverser keeps the focus on each player character individually by making each the center of his own "story". The game is "about" who you are, what you do, and what you become, as strange things confront you.

A lot of the referee techniques are about moving from player to player to keep this going, but I think that once everyone realizes 1) that he is going to get his fair share of spotlight time and 2) that there are other stories happening here that are worth watching even if they don't involve him, the problems of involving everyone sort of slip away.

--M. J. Young

Hmm, what I was looking for is not what systems allow the story to be changed, but how do you balance the story as imagined by the GM (and perhaps by the other players) and the desire to not exclude a player from play?

For example, in the referenced thread on Monte's board, the scenario has the PCs entering a pocket dimension and they can't get out until they solve a puzzle. Now a PC has died. The player of that PC has limited play potential until they get out.

The solutions presented basically came down to:

1. The player should just not play until the story is resolved.
2. The player could play some monsters or someone's familiar.
3. A replacement PC could be introduced as someone else who happened to be stuck in the pocket dimension also.
4. The GM could contrive to have the dead PC revived (either completely, temporarily, or in an alternate form).

For myself, I consider 1 and 2 non-solutions unless the time frame is very short (it's a given that if you play a system where PCs can be killed or knocked out that there will be some downtime until they can play again - well, ok Paranoia is the most popular exception to that rule - but even in Paranoia there must still be some down time [I've never played Paranoia]). Others in that thread were arguing that any solution other than 1 or 2 would ruin their fun.

So how does one balance these competing needs? Or can one balance them at all? Perhaps the two types of players shouldn't play together. In that case, how do you communicate this pretty important part of the social contract of the game? I've never had a GM tell me up front that in his game, should my PC be killed, I could have to miss a game session until the PCs could get back to town or whatever.

I also know that I have not always payed attention to the needs of my players in situations like this. How does one improve that response?

Frank

I'm not sure that there's a great impetus for all the players to play all the time (if the group splits into two sections does the GM switch back and forth every other sentence to ensure that no one waits?).

My standard solution is to give each group an alotment of time. If Joe dies he can make a character and start playing again as soon as he's ready--he's just somewhere else, doing his own thing.

Something like a kicker would seem a good idea here to get things moving with a new character.

The player of the recently deceased might, in fact, be separated for quite some time with the play switching back and forth, until the groups merged.

-Marco

My standard solution is to give each group an alotment of time. If Joe dies he can make a character and start playing again as soon as he's ready--he's just somewhere else, doing his own thing.

ffilz wrote:

My standard solution is to give each group an alotment of time. If Joe dies he can make a character and start playing again as soon as he's ready--he's just somewhere else, doing his own thing.

But does he have to be somewhere else? Is there a problem with facilitating his joining the rest of the group fairly quickly?

As to groups splitting up: the issues with balancing play time of everyone is one reason most people avoid lengthy party splits.

Frank

I guess for me the question is how set in stone is it that there really could be no one else there? Or that there couldn't be a scroll of resurrection there (assuming such a thing is part of the game system)?

Perhaps part of it comes down to illusionism. How much does continuity with facts not know by the players other than the GM matter?

Does the story have to be so rigid?

Of course I think I would try to not introduce such a rigid story in the first place. I might give some thought to what to do if a PC dies (or what if a new player arrives).

To take this to an extreme, one could create a campaign setting which doesn't allow any PC replacement at all. What about all those settings where you play yourself - if your PC dies, what do you do then? Is there a value of such a story that could be so strong as to basically mean kicking a player out of the group (oops, you died in the first session, we're planning on playing this campaign for 5 years)?

What I'm trying to get at is how do you balance things like this? It might be perfectly acceptable for some people to be out of play for many sessions. Other people would quit a game where they were out of play for 5 minutes. Probably everyone in any given game group has a different tolerance level, so how do you communicate and balance this?

Here's some other things to think about:

What if the player who is out is the host of the game, or the transportation for one of the other players?

What if one of the players isn't able to make it for a session? How is that handled?

It seems to me that there's a constant potential for conflict between the story continuity and the real life needs of the players, so it seems like it's worth developing methods to resolve those conflicts other than abolutism of story.

Frank

ffilz wrote:
It seems to me that there's a constant potential for conflict between the story continuity and the real life needs of the players, so it seems like it's worth developing methods to resolve those conflicts other than abolutism of story.

Frank

Referring back to ffilz's four solutions, I tend to use one and three when I play. I'll do one if I'm the player and three if I'm the GM. Four gets into whether something has been established as a way to bring back the dead.

With one, there's a stoic kind of purity. And I remain engaged for the remainder of the session, out of interest and courtesy. Then, by the next session, reverse pressure against the group, if nothing else, tends to draw three.

Something I did in a Story Engine campaign was to have each player create two characters. As the story unfolded, I started working in their secondaries, extemporaneously, as NPC's. My plan was, if anyone died, they'd take over for that NPC. No one did, but I was ready; and the added bonus was huge smiles as players recognized their NPC.

Still on topic, something a player in that same campaign did was rather interesting. I alloted every PC a special power that could be anything they wanted. This player said he wanted to return to the living world as a vengeful spirit if he were cut down in the quest for his revenge. (Delicious.) He didn't die, but it would have been cool.

This brings to mind another variant: the player who seeks his own death. Another expression of that is the GM who's trying to kill everybody. Now, I'm not talking about a spiteful control freak (GM) or a disturbed Cure fan (PC); I mean to describe willful intention.

As an example, I ran a campaign whose entire goal was to illustrate the monstrous lethality of dragons. I'd become digusted with faery dragons, lap dragon familiars, metallic dragon steeds casting spells and pontificating wisdom. Ugh. I wanted, basically, a fire-breathing lizard that ate villagers. To impress this sparity, I told the group that I would use the dragon to kill all of them, and I wouldn't stop until they were smores. The focus of play was to die trying; but die they would. Holy living crap, that had to be one of the most intense campaigns I've ever run! It's like the difference between Alien and Alien III.

And you might think they'd go, ok, I'm dead. I guess I'll go play video games. But no. It was unthinkable to leave the table; you'd miss what happened next.

*************

ffilz wrote: Perhaps part of it comes down to illusionism. How much does continuity with facts not know by the players other than the GM matter?

ffilz wrote: It seems to me that there's a constant potential for conflict between the story continuity and the real life needs of the players, so it seems like it's worth developing methods to resolve those conflicts other than abolutism of story.

With one, there's a stoic kind of purity. And I remain engaged for the remainder of the session, out of interest and courtesy.

Frank, one of the reasons you're getting examples of systems here is that there are a lot of potential answers to this, and the suggested systems provide illustrations of how they're used.

Frank a.k.a. ffilz wrote: For example, in the referenced thread on Monte's board, the scenario has the PCs entering a pocket dimension and they can't get out until they solve a puzzle. Now a PC has died. The player of that PC has limited play potential until they get out.

He later wrote: As to groups splitting up: the issues with balancing play time of everyone is one reason most people avoid lengthy party splits.

ffilz wrote: In the killer dragon campaign, was that a multi-session campaign? If so, were the players able to get replacement PCs fairly quickly?

ffilz wrote: Illusionism to keep a character from dying is probably misplaced (though I used to do so on a regular basis). Illusionism to change the not completely known background to allow for a replacement PC is a lot different, though advance planning is much better.

M. J. Young wrote: The fact is, often they're not getting [spotlight time] if they're together.

See, your example makes so many assumptions that it's difficult to answer. Why should the referee even have a storyline that he "expects"?

I think it was .. two or three sessions. No, no replacements were allowed; the whole point was to kill them. But I had to use the dragon to do it. That was the other point. So they went through some doings, following its trail from one ruined town to the next. Then, at the end of the last session, they confronted it in its lair.

People want parties to stay together because they want equal spotlight time, and they think they're not getting it if they're separated. The fact is, often they're not getting it if they're together. Two or three players are going to dominate the group, at the most, and in most situations they're the ones shining. The others either go along for the ride or emerge for their brief moments when their protected sphere comes into play (e.g., the thief who always gets to open the doors and otherwise stays in the back).

bcook1971 wrote: M.J:

Multiverser sounds like Quantum Leap or Sliders. If a PC dies, do you then thread the next world for him--concurrent with play for the remaining group--until they trigger passage?

Neil Gaman's Sandman graphic novels also come to mind. (I guess I'm getting OT.)