This is an actual play experience from over 15 years ago but it was one of the best games I've ever been in so the events really stuck with me but it's always left a couple nagging questions.

There were 4 participants in the game myself, Brad, Kevin and Ed.  The first 3 of us had known each other for years and all kind of connected on the same wavelength, Ed was a bit of an outside factor.  He was a friend of a friend a little bit older and not as tight with the bunch.

So Kevin starts the game up, lays out the facts that we will all be secret agents from a vast space empire on a secret mission to earth.  Our mission, to find a scientist who had snuck away with the plans for a new secret weapon.  For character creation he gave us the choice of brains, brawn or stealth.  Brad took brawn, Ed took stealth I took brains.  We each were also given a secret that wasnt revealed to the others.

Play begins and we have a good time right off the bat.  The characters were in our own small (pop.15,000) home town and we were making all kinds of fun things up about how the aliens misunderstood our culture, thinking a coffee shop named after a dead hockey player was a shrine to a fallen warrior and things like that. 
We began our search through various appropriate means. I modified electronic devices to scan for the scientist, Brad and Ed searched the streets for any signs.

We met up at our hotel room where Brad received a message, one of his team was a working for the enemy.  He immediately turned around and shot me while Ed dodged out the window.  The secrets came out I was the traitor, but then again Ed was a mercenary so he was almost as much a traitor.  This incident set off an escalating battle between myself and Brad.  We made slight attempts to find the scientist but the focus of the game became revenge against each other, we ignored the scientist in order to battle it out between us.

The thing is the game became about the battle between myself and Brad's characters and it left Ed on the outside.  He was present and seemed to be enjoying it but it kind of left him out of the loop.  Kevin was right in the game feeding us suggestions making up weaponry and adjudicating results of actions (we threw dice but there seemed to be little rhyme or reason to what they meant, more or less gm fiat).

I'm looking at designing a game that allows players prettty much free reign in narrating the events of the game but what worries me from this experience and others is that some players may get left out.   Does the freedom we used in this game lead to the stronger personalities taking over the game?  Would this have worked out over the long run if it had been more than a one shot?  What mechanics in other games draw everyone in, get them involved, and still allow for free interaction?

   

One option, Caldis, is including a mechanic that rewards participants for including other participants in their narration.  Another option is a formalized transition of narration rights that ensures that everybody gets equal or near-equal time at the microphone.

You could certainly ensure a more global participation, even with a large freedom of narration, by having round-robin scene-framing amongst the players.  That way every player gets the chance to bring up stuff that they find interesting.  Who knows; if given the chance, Ed mighta kept looking for the scientist. 

I've really come to believe that freedom of narration needs to occur within a fairly rigid framework in order for it to function so that it drives the story forward in a way that's satisfying for everyone at the table.  Polaris springs to mind as a strong example...

Aaron

Good suggestions and I'm certainly keeping them in mind.  I like the idea of global participation but I do have some concerns about mechanincs that enforce it.  The problem in this situation wasnt just that Ed was left out, it was that Ed may not have quite got what was going on and was unable to keep up with everyone else.  Mechanincs that ensured he had equal access to the microphone may have dragged the rest of the game down while he fumbled to come up with something to narrate.  I agree entirely with the rigid framework idea you mentioned Aaron, trying to focus peoples creative abilities all in the same direction to reduce times when someone doesnt get it. 

The other thing I'm looking for here is examples of play that had to deal with the same kind of thing.  PTA seems like its aimed to do just this thing, make the play aobut one or two characters and force others to the sidelines.  I'm wondering how it has turned out in long term play, does the fluctuatuing screen presence ensure that eveyone eventually gets their day?  And what if it is someones day and they just dont click with what's going on, can the group adjust and make play enjoyable?

I'm not just asking about PTA here.  I'm really interested in any play where at least one player was left out for a significant portion and what steps were taken to bring them back into the play.

Caldis,

I didn't really have in mind any particular mechanical way to move narration around, other than in a "Hey, I'll frame the first scene and then we'll move to my left around the table" kind of way.  That being said, if you're worried about a player being gun shy, you could put together a mechanic that allows players the choice for narration, possibly backed up by resource-gain, but doesn't force the issue.  That way, if they're sitting quietly but running out of ammo, so to speak, anyone present could suggest "Well, you might want to pick up narration this time; it'll give you a boost!" 

I'm also wondering if most of this problem couldn't be solved extra-mechanically; simply encourage people who don't have rights of narration at that moment to chime in with suggestions, too.  We certainly did that while playing Polaris, as well as Shadows in the Fog.  Several of us were a bit nonplussed when we played SitF; it was certainly the first game I'd ever played where the burden of narration fell squarely on my shoulders.  However, by everyone freely contributing, we soon got over it.  Of course, that game goes round-robin as well...

Aaron

I'm wondering how it has turned out in long term play, does the fluctuatuing screen presence ensure that eveyone eventually gets their day?

Kesher wrote: That being said, if you're worried about a player being gun shy, you could put together a mechanic that allows players the choice for narration, possibly backed up by resource-gain, but doesn't force the issue.  That way, if they're sitting quietly but running out of ammo, so to speak, anyone present could suggest "Well, you might want to pick up narration this time; it'll give you a boost!"

Well said, man.

It's very hard for a GM to resist the active players clammoring for attention in any game. So if you can co-opt them into a scheme to get the other players involved, so much the better.

Mike

Josh:  Absolutely! 

Now, if you'd be interested in giving examples of such reward schemes over in RPG Theory, I'd happily participate in that thread, too...

Aaron

Well there's mine: Reward System at Last!