Mike Holmes wrote: You want one of the PCs to go nuts and attack a Night King. That's drama. You want all the other PCs to be pissed about it. But the players secretly loving it. Knowing that no matter what the PC does, the players won't be punished.

Who knows, by then maybe people will even feel more comfortable with splitting up and doing individual things more. This is another thing that would help me, but that I don't want to force on people.

Cripes, that's a whole nother post. Actually I should link you to one of the threads where I've already explained this...

One of the techniques is giving players importaint NPCs to play while their PC is out of the picture. It was touched upon in the (Exalted) Ten Thousand Broken Dreams: session summaries for an ongoing campaign thread on RPGnet (around page 4).

Also, making sure you keep some action on other characters is a good tip.

Hi

I'm in a very similar situation to yours, having recently switched from d20 to HQ in mid-campaign. I've found that the characters are now very rarely all in the same place at the same time, while they almost always were while we were using d20. I still can't keep everybody focussed all the time but I'm getting better at juggling.

Ranko wrote: One of the techniques is giving players importaint NPCs to play while their PC is out of the picture.

Sorry for being so slow on the reply with this one. My wife and I had dual dentistry today (she had root canal, I merely got 4 fillings), and as a result I’ve been a little bit less than quick with the snappy. Hopefully I can make up for it by saying something useful.

I’m right in the middle of running a fairly long standing Exalted game (a year, about 25 sessions, and about 2/3 way through the story) in which the PCs are very rarely in the same room with each other. Of all the play they’ve probably spend less than ½ of it even in the same city, and well under 1/3 in the same scene at the same time. I’ve been practicing a couple of ways to keep the game interesting, which I’ll now share.

The first is remembering that even though the PCs are in different scenes they are in the same story. Player interest in other player’s scenes tends to stay high when they can see direct and tangible links between their scene and the other scenes going on. It gets even better when the things they find out by watching others’ scenes will be immediately important to them. So something from the plot going on with one (or many) non-present PCs will show up in almost every scene with another PC. What one does will impact the others, giving the players a selfish motivation to care about what the others are doing.

For example, in the Exalted game we’ve a Lunar character, Kika, who is in a long lasting battle of mythmaking with a creature known as Rook in the Garret. He is a hidden foe, about whom she knows very little (and all of that bad), whose hand she can almost never see until it is almost too late. He takes great pains to hide himself from Kika, as he knows she is dangerous to him. He doesn’t take such pains with the Dragonblooded, however, and so the Dragon Blooded PC, who regularly deals with demons, will often stumble onto information about, or cool things having to do with the Rook. As soon as I so much as mention the name “Rook,” Kika’s player will become all ears and attention – because she knows her story, her character, and her survival are all important in this scene, even though she isn’t there and the main focus is on another player.

This works especially well if you use a technique that Ron Edwards calls “Crossing.” In this method players are allowed to use the effects (and some knowledge) of a previous scene in their current scene, even when their character wasn’t present for the scene. This can be a bit tricky to work out, and get used to, but it works well when you find a way your characters can deal with. In the Exalted game I run, the players became okay with it when their characters found a spell that let them empathically communicate with each other – thus giving them reason to use things one PC learned even when they were across the continent. This adds another reason to be interested in other player’s scenes – the info they find you may be able to use as well.

Of course, if you can set up climactic back and forth framed scenes, shifting between characters to build tension, it works the best. Think of the Star Wars movies, or the Lord of the Rings movies, or back to Braveheart, Gladiator, and so on -- all of them use cutaways at dramtic moments to highten tension. Often they cut back and forth between different parts of the same conflict, showing how the rise and fall in fortunes on one protagonists side causes the effects on the other side. In the Exalted game we did this durring one huge conflict with a massivly powerful NPC. One PC snuck into the NPCs manse to deactivate his magic hoozits, while another found his family to come and reason with him, and the third fought a brutal defensive battle to try and hold him at bay. The action went back and forth hard and fast, and even though none of the PCs were even in the same city (until the very end) they were all working together as a team and inherently involved in the combat.

I don’t generally have PCs play NPCs in other scenes. I’ve done that sometimes in the past, but for this game it was unsatisfactory. What we use to replace it is table-talk, input, and advice on the current scene from other players. So when someone is stunting away in, say, a huge combat the other players will start calling out extra ideas for props or visual themes for the active player to use. We also often have a psychological-deconstruction peanut gallery that goes on, mostly in breaks in scenes where the massive amounts of Exalted dice rolling is going on, in which players speculate about the characters in the scene (PC included) in the same way that we do about characters in books and movies. This keeps everyone game, character, and scene focused. The only issue to watch for is making sure the game, rather than the analysis, stays front and center. Give the peanut gallery an inch, but don’t let them take a mile.

The other things that help this setup work are some practical matters. I keep scenes short – shooting for 20 minutes and maxing out at a little over a half hour. This keeps the flow of the game going and makes sure that attention spans aren’t taxed. It also helps encourage everyone to get to the meat of the story, do what they want to do. (Or, as one player puts it “Hit it and quit it.”)

We also seat ourselves such that people can have side conversations, or scenes, without talking across the table. This often allows the more immersivist players in the group to have IC discussions without interrupting a scene that isn’t crossing with their plot. We don’t do that much in the Exalted game (there are only 3 players and I have a –lot- of crossing), but I’ve done it in games with more players in the past to good effect.

Even with all of the above, things don’t always work out perfectly. For example, last session we had one player who’d been up for 41 hours who burnt out towards the end of the game and checked out of everyone else’s scenes and got pissed when they went on longer than expected. The player also told us at the time that there was no need to give the character more scenes, then got irked that they ended up with fewer scenes than everyone else. Afterwards, however, we talked the situation out, the player agreed it was mostly crankiness, and I promised to keep a tighter reign on scene-length (which I had been a bit lax on that week).

All in all, however, keeping a focus on the central themes and story and making sure that all the characters are all parts of the same meta-narrative, goes a hell of a long way to making split party games work.

What Brand said.

This is hard for players of other RPGs to get, but play this way, when it's working as described, is no less engaging in terms of quantity than "Party Play."

The first thing to do is to simply reject the idea that it's "Split Play." That's completely a Party Play POV, and comes from where people in Party Play get split up. If there is no "party" and never was, then that's the first step towards making this all seem right to participants.

Let's go back and look at what Party Play implies. First, it developed solely because of the emulation of JRR Tolkien in D&D, and because of the development of RPGs from wargames. Basically, D&D was play of "scenarios" that were like those encountered by the fellowship from LotR. This became the default form of play thereafter. When it became sensible for the PCs to split up, what happened is that people noted that, basically, you had to wait your turn to play. So Party Play became even more entrenched. It goes from being a metagame connection of the characters due to the structure of scenarios, to becoming a social contract agreement to play this way so that everyone can maximize fun.

Well, what does this mean? It means that players have an incentive to ignore PC motives in order to maximize this fun. So this sets up the initial problem. If you want to play to PC motives, then what do you do?

The usual suggestion is interesting. Most games tell players to use author stance to create a reason why their character is with the party, and then retroactively make that the character's plausible motive. Even in games where you're told to ignore OOC information, this is encouraged. The problem, of course, is that it leads to incoherence in play. Some players are being informed that they should use OOC info, others are against it (in fact, I could write an essay arguing that this is the primary incoherence cause in RPGs).

As it happens, it's not incoherent to suggest coming up with a reason to have a party in a game where you want to support narrativism, since that sort of author stance is part and parcel of play for the most part. But, then, what's also true is that it's OK to use actor stance for whatever, not just for party play. I mean, what if you just can't come up with a reason for being somewhere? It's just implausible to have PCs hanging around with each other all the time.

Worse, it stifles drama. If PCs don't have a chance to do things on their own, then there's a far more limited set of things that can happen dramatically.

So why not use Actor Stance in other ways? Well, in practice this is what happens in "split play" games. That is, what people don't often get is that, for example when I run a game, I'll ask a player, "Want in on this scene?" Players more used to the style will say, "Can I get in on this scene? What if I just happen to be wandering by?" OK, wandering by is only used such as it doesn't become implausible, but there are often more plausible reasons to be coming by. Deliveries are good, for instance, because often the delivery itself can be interesting.

The point is that "split play" doesn't mean that characters are separated a "realistic" amount of the time, it means that they're separated a "dramatic" amount of the time. The players will, themselves if given a chance, monitor their own enjoyment by inserting themselves whenever they think it would be cool to do so.

Know what? Sometimes they insert themselves very, very little, however. In my FTF game, often we do just rotate scenes around the table, each player taking their "turn." In the latest installment, in fact, scenes in which the PCs cross paths are pretty rare (although they're on a heroquest together starting next week). This is not because they can't engineer ideas for crossing each other's paths. No, we play like Brand describes above, and what that means is that there's never any "down" time for any player.

Just because your character is not in a scene doesn't mean you're not participating. And, like Brand indicates, I'm not talking about playing an NPC or anything (though that happens often on an impromptu basis - Josh often hijacks my NPCs to give them a funny characterization since he's much better at it than I am, for instance). I'm talking about kibitzing. They're co-GMing with me to some extent, and they're helping the player with a character in the scene come up with ideas about what they want the character to do.

Basically there's just a lot of sharing going on.

Again, it's hard for a traditional player to wrap their heads around, but what we're describing here is not "split play." There's no wating around for your chance to make a contribution to play, you're contributing constantly. The question of who has a character in the scene is not unimportant, they are getting the spotlight shined on them more, yes. But it's nothing like a binary, "I'm going now", "I'm waiting now."

Two more points:
When you play like this a lot, you actually get to the point where you enjoy your "downtime" out of the spotlight. When you're "on" it means you're under substantial pressure to produce neat play. All the other participants are giving you feedback on what to do. This can be exhausting. So when it's not your turn, you actually relish that you are now allowed to participate at whatever rate you like. So you go from periods of "Go, go, go" to, "go as much as you like."

This is really a great pace to play at, IMO, going back and forth like this.

Lastly, are you even really getting less spotlight time? Think about it for a moment - there's still only one GM, either way. He can only shine the spotlight for 60 minutes each hour. And even when the PCs are dialoging, the spotlight is switching back and forth between players. The total number of minutes is the same when playing "split." In party play, you feel a tad less engaged when your character is not in a scene, because you know you won't be able to be called upon to do anything. But everyone has experienced in party play where they've been in the room, but really not involved in the action going on, right? So is that possibility that you might be called on really all that much less engaging than just watching?

What happens in party play is that, since you're assumed not to have a character there, and so not to be allowed to affect anything, you have to sit silent as audience. All you have to do is change that expectation, and "downtime" becomes nearly as fun as being in the scene itself. And then you're participating more overall, and then looking forward to the downtime....

It works, and works well. Perfectly? No, but I think it works at least as well as Party Play, and possibly with greater fecundity.

And, of course, it's better for drama. Period.

Mike

We went over a lot of stuff in this post: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8920

You may have to dig to find the related materials.

Mike

CCW wrote: In the first contest, two players acted as the audience, while the third player, a bardic type, was trying to entertain at a party. The audience members, apart from rolling the dice, making bids, etc., also made catty remarks, made requests, and applauded.

In the second contest, one player who wasn't at the party controlled the hoard of zombies who attacked the place around closing time (as they do).

I essentially had nothing to do but watch and throw in the occasional bit of narration (though they were doing most of that themselves). I even got up to go to the bathroom at one point, and they just carried on without me.

Another thing that seems to work is to give information that player A is interested in to Player B's character. Of course players (and often characters) will share the information anyway, but people seem to like to be listening when things are revealed. So far this isn't something I've really done consciously, but I've noticed how concentration has improved when this has happened accidently.

Finally, don't stay with any one player for too long and, if possible, cut to another player just after you offer the first player a choice (but before he or she has had a chance to choose).

Brand_Robins wrote: So something from the plot going on with one (or many) non-present PCs will show up in almost every scene with another PC. What one does will impact the others, giving the players a selfish motivation to care about what the others are doing.

...He takes great pains to hide himself from Kika, as he knows she is dangerous to him. He doesn’t take such pains with the Dragonblooded, however, and so the Dragon Blooded PC, who regularly deals with demons, will often stumble onto information about, or cool things having to do with the Rook.

This works especially well if you use a technique that Ron Edwards calls “Crossing.” In this method players are allowed to use the effects (and some knowledge) of a previous scene in their current scene, even when their character wasn’t present for the scene. This can be a bit tricky to work out, and get used to, but it works well when you find a way your characters can deal with.

In the Exalted game we did this durring one huge conflict with a massivly powerful NPC. One PC snuck into the NPCs manse to deactivate his magic hoozits, while another found his family to come and reason with him, and the third fought a brutal defensive battle to try and hold him at bay. The action went back and forth hard and fast, and even though none of the PCs were even in the same city (until the very end) they were all working together as a team and inherently involved in the combat.

I don’t generally have PCs play NPCs in other scenes. I’ve done that sometimes in the past, but for this game it was unsatisfactory.

The other things that help this setup work are some practical matters. I keep scenes short – shooting for 20 minutes and maxing out at a little over a half hour.

All in all, however, keeping a focus on the central themes and story and making sure that all the characters are all parts of the same meta-narrative, goes a hell of a long way to making split party games work.

Mike Holmes wrote: This is hard for players of other RPGs to get, but play this way, when it's working as described, is no less engaging in terms of quantity than "Party Play."

The first thing to do is to simply reject the idea that it's "Split Play." That's completely a Party Play POV, and comes from where people in Party Play get split up. If there is no "party" and never was, then that's the first step towards making this all seem right to participants.

The usual suggestion is interesting. Most games tell players to use author stance to create a reason why their character is with the party, and then retroactively make that the character's plausible motive. Even in games where you're told to ignore OOC information, this is encouraged. The problem, of course, is that it leads to incoherence in play. Some players are being informed that they should use OOC info, others are against it (in fact, I could write an essay arguing that this is the primary incoherence cause in RPGs).

It's just implausible to have PCs hanging around with each other all the time.
...
Worse, it stifles drama. If PCs don't have a chance to do things on their own, then there's a far more limited set of things that can happen dramatically.

That is, what people don't often get is that, for example when I run a game, I'll ask a player, "Want in on this scene?" Players more used to the style will say, "Can I get in on this scene? What if I just happen to be wandering by?"

The point is that "split play" doesn't mean that characters are separated a "realistic" amount of the time, it means that they're separated a "dramatic" amount of the time. The players will, themselves if given a chance, monitor their own enjoyment by inserting themselves whenever they think it would be cool to do so.

Know what? Sometimes they insert themselves very, very little, however.

Just because your character is not in a scene doesn't mean you're not participating.
...
I'm talking about kibitzing. They're co-GMing with me to some extent, and they're helping the player with a character in the scene come up with ideas about what they want the character to do.

Basically there's just a lot of sharing going on.

Again, it's hard for a traditional player to wrap their heads around

When you play like this a lot, you actually get to the point where you enjoy your "downtime" out of the spotlight. When you're "on" it means you're under substantial pressure to produce neat play. All the other participants are giving you feedback on what to do. This can be exhausting. So when it's not your turn, you actually relish that you are now allowed to participate at whatever rate you like. So you go from periods of "Go, go, go" to, "go as much as you like."

Lastly, are you even really getting less spotlight time?

All you have to do is change that expectation, and "downtime" becomes nearly as fun as being in the scene itself.

StalkingBlue wrote: Do you mean a way my players can deal with, or actually their characters? If it's about the players, I'm not too sure what solution might work.

PCs homing in on a specific common target from different directions and locations is one thing. Having them pursue individual interests is another I'd say.

Why was that, do you know? In our group players appear to shy away from playing NPCs just because.

What's the problem then? Not sure, except that one of the players keeps stressing that he doesn't like to split up (even though he also agrees about what some of our most fun scenes were, and hardly any (or none? have to think about that) of those had all the PCs in them at once.

Yep, sometimes players just won't change. Whether or not they have any responsibility to change is another subject. From one POV, if they don't like brussel sprouts, serving them for dinner isn't the right thing to do.

I just can't tell if they might like the brussel sprouts or not. I mean I get lots of crossed signals from the examples you give. But none of that matters, really.

As I say in the sneaking up essay, just give them the brussel sprouts, and find out if they like them.

Here's one technique thing that I'd try. Don't ask the players to put themselves into the scene, instead say, "Do you want to have your character in this scene?" Note the syntax carefully. Not, "Do you want to be in the scene?" but do they want their character in the scene. If they say yes, then you frame in their arrival.

This does several things. First, the players aren't controling something that they're not used to - the GM is still doing the framing. Second, the question puts the player in author mode by how it's asked. They don't have the congnatively dissonant question before them that amounts to, "Do you want to go to some place in time and space that you're unaware of?"

Don't ask players what they'll enjoy. That comes under the umbrella of discussion that doesn't work. In part because most players really don't know how to express what they want very well. Better is to just throw them into something, and see what happens. If they react poorly, then you'll know that they really don't like it. Saying they don't doesn't really mean much.

For example in the case in question, what they're probably saying is that they don't like when in other games the party has split up, and they've been required to shut up. Tell me if this sounds familiar: a player not in a scene says, "Use your stoneskin spell." and the GM tells them to shut up.

I've done that. Long time ago, but I've done it.

In a gamism environment, hinting like this is "tabletalk" or kibitzing which is bad form at least, and illegal inmany cases in, say, card games and other competitions of the sort. So, again, we're canalized that it's not OK to kibbitz. So when we're not with the other characters, we're supposed to remain silent, essentially. That's no fun. Again, party play as a gamism support.

The point is that a lot of players remember that as what "splitting up" means. They don't mean that they don't like the game where they're allowed to kibbitz (the original CA that had to be beaten out of them in the earliest of their play). So don't trust to that, and instead trust to the reaction to actual play of the correct sort.

Lastly, again, a lot of your techniques are "sneaking up" and this is, to me, the problem. You have to really slap players with the mode sometimes. For example, if you want to really give them the idea that they're allowed to author stuff, give them control of the entire scene. Do not ask, "Where are you going next?" Instead ask, "Ted, you come up with a scene. Who's in it, and where does it happen?"

If that doesn't really work, if the player says, "Well, I go to the smithy..." then next time say, "Ted, come up with a scene that your character isn't in." That ought to get the idea across. Be explicit if you have to. At some point say, "OK, forget what your character wants for a second, what would you like to see happen?"

Or, better yet, call a halt to a scene momentarily, turn to an uninvolved player, and say, "What would you like to see happen in this scene? What would you like the character to do?" That doesn't mean that you pass control from the character's player to the queried player. Once you get the answer, you say to the actual controlling player, "Well, what do you think?" They should feel free to reject the idea, but even the fact that you've created the interaction should indicate to everyone that it's what they're expected to do.

These aren't techniques that you have to keep doing, either. Once you've established your CA, you can go back to more comfortable routines. But you have to set up the CA first, or those old techniques will never get you to where you want to be (well, unlikely at least).

It's funny, but I use the "information pertinent to the other players" thing all the time, but I hadn't realized that it was a technique that I was using. Note that in the other mode of play that often what GMs do is to go off with the player in question to have a scene by themselves, so that the affected player doesn't know what his character shouldn't (and this is really dull, and what a lot of players think they don't like about "split play.")

So do this. When you have some information that's pertinent to the other player, turn from the player with the character in the scene, and say the information directly to the affected player. Thus indicating that this is not only something that they shouldn't try to ingnore, but that it's something that you want them to know and act on.

Another really author-ish technique that I use is to give mental states of characters that the other characters couldn't possibly know. For example in a game not too long ago, I had an NPC lie to a PC, and then told the player precisely what the truth of the situation was. In this case, the character said something like, "I'll turn myself in." and I continued, "But though he says that, what he intends to really do is to flee the country."

Yeah, yeah, I could make a roll out of that, but it wasn't an interesting conflict, and I wanted them to know the information.

Oh, that's another thing...if it's important information, not just from NPCs, but from "perception" or whatever, the players don't need to roll, they get the info. This is a hard one to overcome - I myself really like perception checks and the like (I like how they randomize action). But I've learned only to have these if in losing the roll, the situaiton is still just as interesting as if they'd made the roll.

That's actually not all that common. I use these rolls, for instance, to introduce information that has to do with plot threads that don't really involve the PC in question, for example. Like one time the PCs got close to a slaving operation that was run out of a nearby noble house, and I had them roll to see if they'd notice the secret entrance. If they had, it would have added a whole new, and possibly ancillary, plot thread to the game. So I was just as happy when they failed.

Better is to use these rolls to determine information accurately. That is, failure in these cases doesn't mean that the character doesn't get info, instead it means that they get bad info. This is simply the "failure means more plot" thing again. It's extra important with information, however, because info is the player's lifeblood. Sans info, the player has no context in which to make decisions.

Mike

Following the above post with a second post...

Brand_Robins wrote: The PCs are an Elven diplomat, sent to unite his people with the Dorns;

Brand_Robins wrote: Most RPers are programmed, they have been taught with near pavlovian levels of feedback that there are “right” ways to play and that those ways are the only methods whereby they will have a fun game.

Thus suggesting that other methods might be fun often brings them right up against a wall of conceptual limitation. They know that doing X is fun, and they’ve always been told that doing Y is bad, and so when you suggest doing Y, not doing X, and then adding Z the tendency to freak is natural.

The only real way to deal with this is to get them to exercise some trust in you, and each other, and give it a go. If you can show them that it works, if they can have fun doing things they wouldn’t normally have, they will change their ideas over time. Don’t push them too hard, start off slow and small, and learn to grow into it with them.

... Even if its only when they character end up taking down Zardrix, by striking together but in different ways and places, the story and the enemy will bring them together.

Being put into another character, especially one so disposable that the GM doesn't even feel the need to play the character themself, just can't hold a candle to being the hero.

Familiarity breeds contempt, and there is a very real degree to which groups that never split never let the individual members really shine in a heroic light. That means that your character can’t be as cool as possible, and that you come to see the other characters as resources, annoyances, and things to be dealt with as often as seeing them as fascinating heroes in their own right.

Mike Holmes wrote: From one POV, if they don't like brussel sprouts, serving them for dinner isn't the right thing to do.

I mean I get lots of crossed signals from the examples you give.

Here's one technique thing that I'd try. Don't ask the players to put themselves into the scene, instead say, "Do you want to have your character in this scene?" Note the syntax carefully. Not, "Do you want to be in the scene?" but do they want their character in the scene. If they say yes, then you frame in their arrival.

This does several things. First, the players aren't controling something that they're not used to - the GM is still doing the framing. Second, the question puts the player in author mode by how it's asked. They don't have the congnatively dissonant question before them that amounts to, "Do you want to go to some place in time and space that you're unaware of?"

If they react poorly, then you'll know that they really don't like it. Saying they don't doesn't really mean much.

Tell me if this sounds familiar: a player not in a scene says, "Use your stoneskin spell." and the GM tells them to shut up.

So when we're not with the other characters, we're supposed to remain silent, essentially. That's no fun. Again, party play as a gamism support.

... So don't trust to that, and instead trust to the reaction to actual play of the correct sort.

Lastly, again, a lot of your techniques are "sneaking up" and this is, to me, the problem.

For example, if you want to really give them the idea that they're allowed to author stuff, give them control of the entire scene. Do not ask, "Where are you going next?" Instead ask, "Ted, you come up with a scene. Who's in it, and where does it happen?"

If that doesn't really work, if the player says, "Well, I go to the smithy..." then next time say, "Ted, come up with a scene that your character isn't in." That ought to get the idea across. Be explicit if you have to. At some point say, "OK, forget what your character wants for a second, what would you like to see happen?"

Or, better yet, call a halt to a scene momentarily, turn to an uninvolved player, and say, "What would you like to see happen in this scene? What would you like the character to do?"

These aren't techniques that you have to keep doing, either. Once you've established your CA, you can go back to more comfortable routines. But you have to set up the CA first, or those old techniques will never get you to where you want to be (well, unlikely at least).

So do this. When you have some information that's pertinent to the other player, turn from the player with the character in the scene, and say the information directly to the affected player. Thus indicating that this is not only something that they shouldn't try to ingnore, but that it's something that you want them to know and act on.

Another really author-ish technique that I use is to give mental states of characters that the other characters couldn't possibly know. For example in a game not too long ago, I had an NPC lie to a PC, and then told the player precisely what the truth of the situation was. In this case, the character said something like, "I'll turn myself in." and I continued, "But though he says that, what he intends to really do is to flee the country."

Oh, that's another thing...if it's important information, not just from NPCs, but from "perception" or whatever, the players don't need to roll, they get the info.

But I've learned only to have these if in losing the roll, the situaiton is still just as interesting as if they'd made the roll.

StalkingBlue wrote: Seriously, I pretty much agree. I've never seen myself as the central personage in a game I run. My first role as a GM is to enable player fun. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I can't do that well unless I, too, have fun. So yeah, this entire switching-over idea is for me primarily, but if I expected that the players would all hate it, I wouldn't even try. Although in that case I'd probably give up on the game eventually.

Yup I know. Sorry for reporting crossed signals.

Great, thanks. Thinking back I suspect have said "you" when I've invited players to decide when their character would arrive, for instance. No wonder people weren't too eager to act on my invitations, I see the dissonance now - I actually see the pain of the dissonance on one player's face when I used to say that to him! I never got what the problem was. D'oh.

Tell me if this sounds familiar: a player not in a scene says, "Use your stoneskin spell." and the GM tells them to shut up.

I've heard of this, but never played in a group where this was done. It sounds horribly unfun.

Although in our current group, we sometimes have had to restrict certain more dominant players from talking too much because otherwise they'd take over the game completely - and this is usually done by the other players shouting them down. The way table talk flows and we float in and out of immersive play and table chatter, I'd say none of us are traumatised by past "shut-up" play.

It looks like Brand and you are disagreeing to an extent. He says, go nice and slow, you say, slap them with mode. ?

Heh. Cool. "... and act on" is the important bit here, for me. It's pretty clear to everyone I think that I generally like everyone to know everything that goes on in play. How that translates into player actions isn't so clear because I've never given clear enough guidance about it. As things are currently, only one player will act on player information, and uses it to "win".

Oh right. That's great too. That will make for another big step away from old habits. I've never yet given players "mental state" information directly, although I would say things like "he looks shifty". Not the same thing obviously.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Tell me if this sounds familiar: a player not in a scene says, "Use your stoneskin spell." and the GM tells them to shut up.

I've heard of this, but never played in a group where this was done. It sounds horribly unfun.

Well, it's key to some people's enjoyment, actually. Just because you or I find it odd, doesn't mean that it's not what works for some people.

Keep in mind, I'm not providing you with an innately superior way to play - just one which I think you personally will enjoy more. I'm sure I've gone overboard in my presentation, so my apollogies.

But you do have the restrictions in question, which is interesting. Instead of trying to mute the talkative players, channel them. First, scene play should do this pretty well to start. But ask these talkative players to help the other players through their scenes. Once you put the burden on them to help (not replace) the others, their input will become positive.

And I'm betting that it's these players who least like to do "split play?" Since it means a definite reduction in spotlight time for them? If you employ them as mini-GM's and player-helpers, they'll be more engaged overall.

Or do you have a quiet player who doesn't like to be out of a scene? I know that type, and it's a whole nother bag of problems.

It would in fact be good if we were disagreeing. I wish somebody would come in here and tell me that I'm incorrect on a lot more so this would be less a teaching thing by me, and more a way to find new things out.

I personally haven't the time to be that smart, so I go for the shotgun approach. But he's right that if you can insert these things selectively, such that they aren't problematic with some of the previous notions of how people play, you can still manage to show them the way you want to play less "painfully."

But you do this at the risk of being too subtle, and the point being missed. I am not about the subtlety. But that's just my style.

"Are you sure you don't want your character to go to the park where Bob's being beaten up? I mean it's probably on your character's way home. Maybe he wants to see the birds or something? That way your character can taunt Bobs. Cool? Or do you want your character to continue straight home?"

Note how odd it is that it's OK for the GM to create "coincidences" in most play, but not the players?

StalkingBlue wrote: Do you think it works for entire groups? All I've ever heard seemed to imply that it's usually enforced by dominant individuals for their personal enjoyment, most often struggling, adversarial GMs who can only "control" their groups that way.

Hey, let's talk about that Sex keyword thing. You might find me disagreeing with you there. (Although who knows. You might end up convincing me again, dammit.)

No more questions at this point. I'm hungry to play after all the coolness above and in the related threads - unfortunately due to individual schedules, that ain't gonna happen until late January. I'll report after the game.

Let's call this closed.