Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by David C, August 09, 2009, 02:10:15 AM
QuoteThe GM is supposed to guide the whole progression of things, but it is supposed to be up to the player to set a scene.
QuoteThis is the type of moment I wanted to capture as a player and it is the type of moment I want the players to be able to make. The GM should be in control for most of the story, but the players should be able to decide those defining moments.
QuoteA great deal of the aesthetic power of Simulationist play, as I see it (and I mean that literally), lies in (a) adding to or developing that package, and (b) enjoying its resiliency against potential violation.
QuoteTo stick with the example, let's say your group is enjoying this Star Trek role-playing experience. Then someone in the group announces an action for a character which demonstrates that he or she, the player, doesn't understand the group's shared agreement about what Star Trek "is" in the first place. At all. The announced action simply cannot be tolerated, even as a suggestion, partly because it undermines the source inspiration, but especially because it makes the (b) step, which is the real payoff, totally impossible.When that happens, everyone else gets that sickening feeling which I should have a name for, the instant and non-verbalized knowledge that "he's not doing it right"
QuoteAdditionally, I think your "package unraveling" is flipped around back'ard. David made it fairly clear that dragons weren't to be fucked with lightly. Everyone in the group seemed to grok this. Hence, *that* is the package. David's actions weren't unraveling a package, Eric's were.
QuoteTWO packages, Lance! Two packages that could not be melded together at the time and thus both unraveled. Let's avoid the old human habit of saying *we* have a package and the other guy has abomination and anathima.
QuoteThis sounds like a bored player, or an intentionally disruptive one. I can't tell from what you've written which it is, but in my experience this kind of thing stems from one of two sources:Either: The player is feeling like their character's actions don't influence the outcome of the game. They don't feel like they have any say over where the game is going, so they respond by working with the only thing they can control - their own character. They're not any more excited by the results of their character's actions than you are, it's just that these results are something they caused. They're taking control.
QuoteHow is authority apportioned by the game rules? What, in the rules, gives the player the ability to decide defining moments?
QuoteI also feel like maybe it would benefit from some mechanic that would allow the players greater control over their story.
QuoteOn top of that, the group's dynamics are... not good. Eric wants very badly to be the super hero with his spunky side kicks along for the ride. But even more than that, he wants to be the leader of the group. He wants people to ask him how they should plan a battle. He wants them to listen to what he wants to happen. Instead, the other players tease him. When he makes a complicated battle plan, they'll follow it for a turn and then do their own thing (which makes sense anyways.) When he tried to trick a dwarven merchant out of his precious mithril ore, the other players played a prank on Eric involving the merchant and some fake ores.