Okay, I'm completely blocked, my copy of Sorcerer and Sword has disappeared into a friend's house and I need to solve this problem to move ahead.

In dungeonkind, players currently each create and control a single adventurer who is driven by a (player-created) obsession (called THE BEAST THAT GNAWS MY HEART) which drives them out into the wilderness.  Players also create 3-6 "levels" for their characters, called HUNGERS, which are progressive stages in their satisfying their obsession.  Each HUNGER acts as a point of advancement, and if they fail in their quest they will either a) choose to accept death or b) retire, a bitter and disillusioned once-upon-a-time adventurer.  There's more info here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17915.0

My problem is this:  I would like to preserve the old D&D trope of the adventuring party (old D&D reference is a big part of the game as well); how can I do this with powerfully indivdual characters whose stories are, in a way, already mapped out?  I mentioned S&S above because I know it deals with this very issue, I just can't remember how.  But I'm also interested in any other ideas.  I've even considered a Polaris-like round-table-no-GM idea, but this would take major re-writes that I'm not sure would suit the game.  Sean has given me an interesting idea about making everyone's HUNGERS graph to the same location, but that's not quite what I'm looking for, either.

Anyway, how to do effective formal cut-sceneing that keeps everyone involved, character interweaving, anything else...  help!

Aaron

Here's a quick, random idea born of skimming the thread you linked and of my recent experience in Dogs play.

First, create some kind of technique that formally bonds the characters together from the start. For whatever reason, they swear an oath or something. Maybe all together, maybe to one another individually. Maybe each player designs a unique bond from his character to each other.

Then, create episodic play, focusing on one character at a time. Preserve continuity within each character arc, but eschew continuity amongst them. Last session, the party sailed with Morgan to the Isle of Ithquil. This session, the party helps Ulgaard trek over the Frozen Waste to hunt the Last Mammoth. Next session, the party will delve with Zorick the Black into the Forbidden Library-Temple of Koth. After that it's back to Morgan on the ship. Did these adventures happen in sequence? If so, in what order? Who knows? They are almost timeless in relationship to one another.

Of course, with episodes like that you'd need some crazy way to handle it when a character fails in his quest. Perhaps once you have failed, episodes no longer focus on your character -- but as you are adventuring with the other characters, perhaps something they do can stir your BEAST yet again and bring it to new life, resurrecting your arc. ("Remember the time you were slain on the Fields of Pseudelba?" a character reminisces. "How we left you for dead, unsuspecting that the Witch of the Sky would nurse you back to health?")

The game ends when all arcs are at the same time in a "Failed" or "Won" state.

Kesher -

If you're looking for techniques, what you need is scene framing devices and common elements between the disparate stories so that players are interested in each other's stories as spectators at least. Common NPCs between the stories, common places, being connected to different parts of the same struggle, bringing PCs together where it looks plausible, etc. Ron's writings have lots of value here, as you know. You picked up Sex and Sorcery - pay attention to the way Ron describes running his Az'k'arn adventure, with the two and one character split and intersecting plots, that's important material for you to consider at the level of  techniques and fits with your game. And I think no matter how you solve the problem that material's going to be useful to you.

My suggestion of the common locations was a way to give a GM a framework to design adventures for these groups. Those restrictions are never ideal in that 'absolute freedom' kind of way, but they really, really help make a GMs task manageable. If you decide to handle all this at the level of techniques/ephemera then maybe a menu of possible common elements - location, adversary, problem, whatever - that the GM could choose from.

If you're having a GM, I really recommend (a) giving him some power over some part of the play process and (b) giving him some input into the adventures, which means, since the players are defining their own Beast and Hungers (and I think that's essential, the players should do that) you gotta think about what to give him.

Another option is to go GMless. One possibility:

- three characters
- one player in the "I'm playing my character and driving the situation" role
- one player in the "I'm describing the world in response to your actions" role
- and one player in the "I'm managing adversity" role - maybe this person gets to decide what's a conflict and when, say, so that the second player is just enabling the first's narration until #3 steps in and says "no, here we fight, talk, etc." role.
- rotate all three players after each scene

Worth a thought anyway.

Adam wrote:
First, create some kind of technique that formally bonds the characters together from the start. For whatever reason, they swear an oath or something. Maybe all together, maybe to one another individually. Maybe each player designs a unique bond from his character to each other.

Then, create episodic play, focusing on one character at a time. Preserve continuity within each character arc, but eschew continuity amongst them. Last session, the party sailed with Morgan to the Isle of Ithquil. This session, the party helps Ulgaard trek over the Frozen Waste to hunt the Last Mammoth. Next session, the party will delve with Zorick the Black into the Forbidden Library-Temple of Koth. After that it's back to Morgan on the ship. Did these adventures happen in sequence? If so, in what order? Who knows?

Adam wrote:
They are almost timeless in relationship to one another.

Sean wrote:
If you decide to handle all this at the level of techniques/ephemera then maybe a menu of possible common elements - location, adversary, problem, whatever - that the GM could choose from.

If you're having a GM, I really recommend (a) giving him some power over some part of the play process and (b) giving him some input into the adventures, which means, since the players are defining their own Beast and Hungers (and I think that's essential, the players should do that) you gotta think about what to give him.

Promising!

I had hoped for concurrent Hungers, but this could work. It's a little like my model but more focused (a particular Hunger drives every adventure, instead of waiting for destiny adventures, and instead of optional connections between PCs you have required bonds). Adding the 'time out of sequence' shtick supports what you're doing.

Keep in mind that you're looking at fairly long story cycles if you run it this way with any larger number of players - like, 16 adventures with 4 players having 4 hungers each, not even counting the beast. Can the game support long term play like this? Do you want it to? I don't want to push my vision on you, but I was hoping for something a little faster to the glorious conclusion. But maybe an adventure in this sense doesn't take a whole session, only an hour or two, or something like that, and the GM can prepare 1-3 in advance for a typical 4-6 hour session. If that can work than I think this is very viable.

If you're going to do it this way, though, I think the bonds are a great idea - it formalizes the idea of the party. I have options for this but leave their implementation open.

Sean wrote:
But maybe an adventure in this sense doesn't take a whole session, only an hour or two, or something like that, and the GM can prepare 1-3 in advance for a typical 4-6 hour session. If that can work than I think this is very viable.

Kesher wrote:
Okay, re-reading that, I think it made sense, but it's all I have time for right now.  Thanks to both of you!

Yeah, my constant devouring of pulp S&S literature is coloring this game in a big way...  (Currently reading all of the Kothar and Kyrik books by Gardner F. Fox)

Anyhow, here' s another question:

For the BONDS that connect chars (mapped out at creation), this is what I've come up with:

At creation, each player binds their character to every other character in play, one bond for each (so four player characters means three bonds for each of those characters.)  A bond is definded as (all in relation to another character) :

1. A piece of knowledge
2. An experience
3. A connection to an NPC
4. A background

Each BOND can be drawn on during play by either of the two characters who are so bound, in order to grant the character who needs help an extra Color Die in a conflict.  The BOND must be made relevant to the conflict at hand, and must be included in any narration of the conflict's outcome.  BONDS emphatically do not need to be positive connections.  I see nothing wrong with the occasional love/hate relationship...

BONDS (CHAINS? COILS? FETTERS? What goes with hungry beasts? Ah, I'm reaching) -- Does your character and mine share the same bond, or do I have a distinct bond to you and you have a distinct bond to me, which may or may not be related? In a party of four, are there six bonds, or twelve?

I think there should be six -- make the players work together in pairs to create bonds they mutually agree on.

I don't think they need to be categorized. Follow a description with disparate creative examples. Players would get the picture.

You know, I'm a putz.  Of course they'd need to be pairs of BONDS.  Thanks again, Adam. 

I'm not convinced that a list wouldn't be helpful, though maybe just a list of examples would be more useful than categorizing.  Then again, maybe I just like lists...

We were footsoliders together in the legendary 12th Legion at the sack of the Free City of Greyhawk.

I know that you stole and hid one of the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar.

You saved me in the tunnels beneath Redhome when the goblin priest set the rocks on fire.

...etc.

Aaron

1. I wonder if it would screw things up too much if say, after each player had finished with his Hunger and Beasts, each player went around in turn naming the bond between himself and the player on the left. So that something about your character would be decided by a player other than you. I kind of like that, as opposed to jockeying for mutually acceptable stuff. There's nothing wrong with talking it out first etc. but assigning credibility to one player per bond strikes me as, well, I like it better.

2. As to your lists - I agree that sample bonds or sample types of bonds is definitely something you should provide. You'll need actual sample bonds whether you include the types or not (to illustrate what the types are) but that doesn't necessarily mean the types aren't useful.

P.S. Feel free to use the website however you like when I'm on vacation!