Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by David Berg, February 05, 2010, 01:48:30 AM
QuoteDelve strives for a "What would you do if you were there?" experience based on character knowledge.
QuoteI've thought about enabling players to establish some character decisions retroactively (either facts only or full "flashback" scenes), by making decisions when they're ready to. But I'm not sure how that could be structured: 1) If you wait until it's obvious what the optimal outcome would be, then there's no real decision left ("Now that I know I'll need a shovel, let's go back and establish what we made yesterday. I think I would have decided to make a shovel."). Maybe the players wouldn't miss those decision opportunities too much if the outcomes were always optimal... but if the outcomes were always optimal, they'd never make decisions in advance!
QuoteWhat I'm saying in Big Model at-the-Techniques terms, is that successful play of all kinds may only proceed when people understand when a given scene has provided the limits of what it can provide
QuoteI think that maybe you could all agree to solve the situation in some manner.
Quote from: Callan S. on February 28, 2010, 06:18:01 PMOr more to the point, for some reason they are following his leadership even though it's not fun for them to do so?
Quote from: Callan S. on February 28, 2010, 06:18:01 PMSplit da party! And if John starts telling them they need to stay to carve the rock, despite the fact that in real life that bores almost everyone else...well, it depends if he acts hurt/acts as if his fun is spoilt if they don't, when at the same time he's ignoring if they are having their fun spoilt by sticking around the rock.In which case John is a disruptive player...correction - this goes outside the games SC. John is a disruptive person...subtley, but disruptive none the less. Or atleast what I'd call disruptive.But if his character whinges but as a player he supports other people making their own choices and leaving for other stuff, then cool - play on!
QuoteYour idea that John can carve stuff while Dan can go do something more exciting is interesting. I think it's only actionable, though, if Dan can find excitement without danger. If there's danger involved, it's nonsensical in game to go in without your party -- that's basically rolelaying suicidality.
QuoteThe same problem arises if the players say, "Screw this task, we're not in the mood for it." It's really hard to justify that in-character. "We have a rare and precious resource we can milk for adventuring value... but, nah, let's go adventuring without doing that." Dan is actually playing a pretty impulsive, impatient character, so that gets us closer, but there are limits. "Impatient" remains ultimately subordinate to basic practicality.
QuoteI agree that, at the point where his behavior is selfish and disruptive, social sanction is the logical recourse.
QuoteThis could last only until the first moment in the exploration scenario when it mattered what tools were on hand.
Quote from: Callan S. on March 02, 2010, 10:53:47 PMI've refered to a guy who acts up and demands changes in behaviour if his fun is spoiled, but if someone elses fun gets spoiled he doesn't care. A kind of prima donna. And no you can't work with this guy or find ways - he doesn't care. That's precisely why he's disruptive - because he wont be working with you.