Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Halzebier, August 09, 2005, 06:02:43 AM
Quote from: Ron Edwards1. The player is unwilling, usually out of shyness or fear of disapproval, to do anything to change what's going on. They'll play support characters or weirdos so that whatever they do (and they often do nothing, or "look at the pretty birds"), they won't get called on it or have to account for themselves to others. This is often the result of having endured critical whiffs and having seen a character humiliated by the GM's narration, which always seems to happen to the SO in her first try at role-playing.
Quote from: Ron Edwards2. The player is simply not engaged by what's going on and will do weird stuff very much in the same way that a CRPG player will wander around poking objects in the room on the screen, to see if they'll do anything. In some ways, it's as if the player is wondering whether the GM has anything interesting in mind, and is more-or-less desperately, more-or-less casually throwing out prompts.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsAll of the above should be considered in the proper light, that I am practicing atrocious armchair psychology in this post, and anything I suggest needs to be cross-referenced with and automatically trumped by your actual knowledge of the person and experience of play.
QuoteI've been wondering whether I should goad the players to take MOVs - "Hey Rick, if you take the MOV, I'm gonna grant you a three-dicer. How's that?"Is this a ploy anybody's been using? Do you cut deals, ask for idea rolls ("Hank, I'll grant you a three-dicer if you want to complicate life for Carl's character."), teasingly withhold the die ("C'mon, tell it yourself, Vicky.") or even refuse to give it out ("So you have successfully rolled to find out who killed the settlers, Gary. Well, YOU tell me.")
Quote from: Darren HillIf you really, really want to get people to take more MOVs, you could use the Anti-Pool approach. Give everyone a die when they fail a roll, and when they succeed, let them take a MOV or not - but they get no bonus for not taking one.
Quote from: Ron Edwards- "Each person will find his or her comfort level within the options of these very simple, but very global rules."- It also takes time [...] for a full group to arrive at these comfort levels.- In fact, if there's one GM task which wins respect for and interest in the game, it's a solid reliability regarding 1, 2, or 3 dice as the base roll, letting everyone take it from there in terms of Pool management.
Quote from: JamesDJIII on August 10, 2005, 05:31:06 PMOne of my many questions is how to do handle group conflicts, like a multi-participant combat? Is the procedure and mechanics for it up to each group and GM? How about some concrete examples?
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 11, 2005, 08:32:12 AMIt works wonderfully. It's easy. And it's not based on the traditional approach of playing out the situation action by action, skill check by skill check, perception roll by perception roll - which contains multiple opportunities for one participant (player, GM, doesn't matter) to finesse things to come out how he uniquely wants.
QuoteDoes the GM assume the task of deciding how and which conflicts are being rolled for? How much do the players contribute to this?
QuoteI'm also assuming that the decision to give 1-3 dice from the GM is based on more than just "hey that's really difficult, here's 1 die" versus "that's an easy conflict to win, here's 3". Comments?
Quote from: James DJ IIIFor me the real problem is figuring out, ok, what the role of the GM looks like in the Pool. I have these notions from other games (even Sorcerer) - but I wonder how much it changes in the Pool.
Quote from: James DJ IIIHal, getting back to what you experienced, how much of the DSA background showed up in the MOVs? Did players obey any sort of restrictions on the MOVs? Also, when you cut off Hank and his MOV about the fishmen combat, why did you stop him at that point?
Quote from: Halzebier on August 12, 2005, 04:47:08 AMHank: You gotta shut her up, man.Carl: I've got an idea. I want to ...GM: No, let Gary handle it.Carl: Oh, alright.Gary: I, uh, tell the sergeant that she has these hallucination and it's a relapse.GM: Roll for it.Gary: <rolls dice> Success. I take a die.GM: Okay, you convince him. You handle it just right, not making a big fuss over it, but sorta mentioning her condition in an off-hand way, not alarmed at all. They swallow it, hook, line and sinker.Gary: Hehe.GM: The templar turns to you and says: "She be wrong in the head, but right in all the places a woman should be. You have no use for her, but I do. In my bed. What's her price?"*[* Here, I may be stealing Gary's thunder by inventing a follow-up conflict which makes his success mostly void.]
Quote from: JamesDJIIINow, as I understand it, the Pool's conflict resolution effect is just as solid as Sorcerer. I mean that if Gary's goal in the conflict is to snow the evil templar, and he wins, the fact that the evil templar has been snowed is a done deal, right? Is the source of the concern about the follow conflict? If the player then looses the follow up roll, the first conflict outcome still stands, but now it's just colored by the outcome of the second?