Moderator post to note that he deleted Kirt's message accidentally (I am an idiot). Look below to make more sense of the responses.

Thanks,
Mike

Cool Kirt. Ralph and I are just back from Origins, so forgive us for not getting back to you on this sooner.

I suspect we didn't use Interruptions as we only had three players, and Emily is very polite.

Thats so wierd above.

xiombarg and Mike Holmes with identical posts.

Looks like Mike somehow invoked moderator powers and inadvertantly replaced Kirt's message with his own. He did that to one of mine once.

I keep trying to tell him it won't help his post count ;-)

Kirt, I'm afraid your post has been deleted. I doubt its recoverable. I hope it wasn't too massive a tome to recreate...?

Luckily, it was mainly pointing to my LJ, where all the meat is:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/xiombarg/304648.html

The only thing I said here, aside from pointing to my LJ and asking for comments on THAT, was that we didn't use Sub-Components and Interruptions at all. As per my quoted text, I said I thought that we didn't use Interruptions as there were only three of us, and Emily is very polite. I also said I suspect I might want to make Master or Sub-Components for the White, Black, and Red Rose Societies, as well as "wizard" and "duelist".

The politeness thing isn't totally tongue-in-cheeck, as Mike suggests. Emily can get oddly shy at times, especially as her boyfriend, James (aka "The Confessor") can be something of a spotlight hog. She ended the session with the most coins because, I think, she didn't want to interrupt me or James. She was TOO polite. ;-D Plus, the term for it -- "interruption" -- is somewhat confrontational-sounding, which isn't her style. Emily didn't want to push her agenda, despite the fact that James and I said that was the whole point.

Apollogies.

Actually that's the third time I botched something up like that, truth be told. Just not used to having moderator power in most cases. :-)

Thanks goodness the Live Journal post had most of the details, and not the post here. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future.


On the subject of agenda, I actually play more like Emily. I don't really see things as confrontational so much as synthetic. That is, I use Challenges and Interruptions mostly to correct errors, or to tweak things in a minor way, but rarely to try and force my view. The result I find is a story that's the sum of each players contributions, as opposed to more "competitive" games where the results seem to be more "torn" from play.

I'm fairly sure both methods work just fine in practice, as long as the competition doesn't become the point of play. I'd be careful to check the comfort level of each player, however. If they're playing more passively like I do, and others are playing to force the game in the direction that they envision, I suppose it's possible that the passive player might feel alienated. That said, I've never felt that way myself. I've always felt that if a player feels passionate about some result that it's likely a good addition to the story, and it doesn't matter how it comes about.

But to accomodate a player like Emily, I think you may have to play a bit differently. This can be covered by Gimmick, for example. Perhaps you could have a rule that she cannot be Interrupted, but in doing so she gives up the right to interrupt. Or you might just want to drop Interruptions altogether. You still can Challenge, and that includes Fining players who abuse non-Interruptability by Filabustering.

Things to consider.

Mike

I've been in a couple of games that informally rule gimmicked away a good bit of the standard structure.

Instead of: I talk on my turn, I pay for what I say with my Coins, and if you want to say something you have to wait for your turn and interrupt.

It became: I talk on my turn, everyone sort of open kibbitzes about stuff. Some of the stuff they throw out I say "sure but I'm not paying for it", they then pay for stuff that they suggested during my turn.

I say informally rule gimmicked, because as I recall there was no actual Coin spent to say "this is how we'll play", its just the way the group happened to fall together.

Allowing a more open turn structure where players can pay for their own kibbitzing with the permission of the player whose turn it actually is, may help get players involved who are unwilling to interrupt.

[No harm, no foul, Mike. It's exactly the sort of thing I'd accidentally do with moderator powers.]

I think I just needed to covertly support Emily some more. I suspect if I'd interoduced some of the stuff he liked, she would have run with it, but was being too passive myself in reaction to James. I was keeping track of the Traits of everything, so that might have been part of it.

One word of caution I'd give to new players: Aside from the obvious recordkeeping, be careful of flashbacks. You get into this situation where it makes a difference when a Component gained/lost particular Traits...

(seems I cross-posted with Ralph)

Valamir wrote: Allowing a more open turn structure where players can pay for their own kibbitzing with the permission of the player whose turn it actually is, may help get players involved who are unwilling to interrupt.