Full name:  
Password:  
Register 
It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:39 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 8:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 298
Location: Edmonton, AB
Quote:
Going to my example of family ties, a key question for me is: 'Did the player not put a family tie on his character sheet because he wanted to avoid such plots, or did he not put a family tie on his character sheet because he just didn't think about it?'.


Then ask. During the twenty minutes after the game when we're all just sitting around gabbing, say "Hey, I had an idea about using your sister as the hook of a story, but I don't think it really hits your SAs. What do you think?"

And I'll go "Hunh? I have a sister?" But since I could - I'm a firm believer in defining as little as possible about the character to make him playable, and there's been nothing said either way about my family - we'll talk about it. And we'll either come up with a way to make it connect, such as her risking "blowing my cover" and threating my Drive. Or we won't, and dismiss it as an unworkable notion.

But if you simply have the letter show up in character, you're running the wrong kind of game.

But there's no obligation to use any given ruleset. If you want, you could take the entire TRoS book, remove SAs, add in 2-5 XP awarded per session, and have a workable system. A little less heroic, mind you, but workable. It wouldn't be the same kind of game... but the point is that it's entertainment, and if you ain't having fun why are you doing it?

I would, however, encourage you to try playing in a narativist style game with a good GM (for which you will have to depend on experience and peer review to find), if for no other reason than to lend moral weight to your arguments. You can't really discuss a game - any game - on the same level if you've ony read it, and never played it.

_________________
"Instead of the Alliance we'll be fighting viewer apathy, fear of something new, the urge to wait for DVD, and Jessica Alba in a bikini. "
-Joss Whedon
------
11 November - Lest We Forget


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:03 am
Posts: 405
Location: Platte City, MO
Anthony Jackson wrote:
I am somewhat insulted by the implication that just because I dislike SAs, I don't talk to the players about what they want from the game. I do so, fairly regularly....


It isn't because you dislike SAs. It's because of the way you explained your dislike of them, using examples that, at least to Davyd and to me, looked like communications-failure issues and GM-control-philosophy issues.

Personally, I was stunned by your assertion that players don't care much about specific events in the game ("while the player probably has ideas for what sorts of adventures he'd like to play in, and what sort of role he sees the character as having, it's unlikely he cares anywhere near as much about the specific plot elements"). Equally, the notion that this is a problem:

"A second problem is that 'what the character values' and 'what the player enjoys' are somewhat orthogonal goals. The character may, fundamentally, want to go home to the farm and raise a dozen children. It's unlikely the player wants him to achieve that goal."

... is bizarre, since the Reluctant Hero is a standard trope. The player wants adventures. The character wants to go home. The player and the GM arrange matters so the character can't go home until X (and Y, and Z, etc) are accomplished.

_________________
James Sterrett


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 242
What makes you think I haven't played in narrativist games? The degree of GM control is mostly unrelated where a game falls on the G/N/S split. Many games with very limited or no GM control of the game fall heavily on the Gamist or Simulationist side of things, eventually blurring into the realm of wargames and boardgames.


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 298
Location: Edmonton, AB
Quote:
What makes you think I haven't played in narrativist games?


Sorry; I thought you said somewhere that you'd read but not played TRoS, and expanded that to narrativist in general. Re-reading the thread shows that not only did I expand the statement's scope, but that it wasn't even you that said it. Oops.

_________________
"Instead of the Alliance we'll be fighting viewer apathy, fear of something new, the urge to wait for DVD, and Jessica Alba in a bikini. "
-Joss Whedon
------
11 November - Lest We Forget


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:06 pm
Posts: 166
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
I just noticed this interestingly-named thread and thought I'd throw in a few pfennigs.

As you can tell by our posts up at the Honor Harrington forum, we're starting up an "Alpha-Test" of Ken's concepts.

No one in our group is raising any objections to Dramatic Hooks except in how many their PC's should have, how often they will get to "fire" in the game, and concerns about DH interaction and conflict.

We discovered right away that it is really hard to come up with Dramatic Hooks by yourself, but really easy if you talk them out with the GM and the other players in a pre-game session.

All of our players look forward to getting their DH's to fire for all kinds of rolls. It will be up to me (the GM) to make sure that this is done right (or at least appropriately).

As far as the combat is concerned, we will be testing Ken's notions of "narrative combat" resolution and I expect that everyone will have a healthy respect for lethality in a universe filled with plasma guns, grav-coil propelled pulser darts, and powered armor battlesuits! 8) Our group tends more towards narrative play anyway, and rarely have we broken out miniatures and hexsheets to resolve combat.

_________________
"Take-off is optional. Landing is mandatory."


 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:56 am
Posts: 239
Location: Italy
Michael Scott wrote:
As you can tell by our posts up at the Honor Harrington forum, we're starting up an "Alpha-Test" of Ken's concepts.

As far as the combat is concerned, we will be testing Ken's notions of "narrative combat" resolution and I expect that everyone will have a healthy respect for lethality in a universe filled with plasma guns, grav-coil propelled pulser darts, and powered armor battlesuits! 8) Our group tends more towards narrative play anyway, and rarely have we broken out miniatures and hexsheets to resolve combat.


Cl: This will be even more true in the AVT universe, with more haphazard medical care. ground combat will be deadly, and made worse by local conditions such as strange atmospheres and geology.


 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron







Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
mile200 v1.0 desgined by CodeMiles Team (msi_333)