screen time == roleplaying time

This got bumped over from the Fudge list.

> From: M. Jason Knight 
> 
> Screen time /is/ roleplaying time.

Jason, could you define screen time?

--- Jeff Stehman




----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

screen time == roleplaying time

On 7 Dec 00, at 15:34, jbstehman@earthlink.net wrote:

> > Screen time /is/ roleplaying time.
> 
> Jason, could you define screen time?

At the risk of being redundant, disingenuous, or flip:  Screen time 
/is/ roleplaying time.

Less oversimplified, it's time when the player is doing something 
with the character.  /In/ character, or close to it, "close" being a 
function of play style and format.  To change metaphors from 
scriptwriter to author, it's time when the player is getting to write, 
rather than read.  Literally, if one is playing by email.  "Screen 
time" is an analogy, and not a perfect one.

"Balancing" this means achieving the balance the players (and gm) 
are interested in, which may or may not be a perfectly equal 
distribution.

What sort of things are you thinking that I'm thinking aren't 
screen/roleplaying/writing time?

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

screen time == roleplaying time

> From: M. Jason Knight 
>
> > Jason, could you define screen time?
> 
> Less oversimplified, it's time when the player is doing something 
> with the character.  /In/ character, or close to it, "close" being a 
> function of play style and format.  To change metaphors from 
> scriptwriter to author, it's time when the player is getting to write, 
> rather than read.  Literally, if one is playing by email.  "Screen 
> time" is an analogy, and not a perfect one.

I was with you here, but your example of Jack in another post lost me
again, since that made it sound like action was required for screen
time.

Here's a quick example.  My character was introduced to a new group
(new to both me and my character).  According to his history, my
character, a courtly guard, spent a *lot* of time quietly observing.
The first few sessions, that is mostly what he did.  My character was
watching and learning the other PCs.  By your definition, did he have
screen time?

If it matters, I clicked with the group very quickly, so it wasn't a
matter of me watching and learning.  The character also clicked very
quickly for me, which is a little unusual.  Normally it takes a few
sessions for me to get a handle on a character.

--- Jeff Stehman




----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

screen time == roleplaying time

On 9 Dec 00, at 13:59, jbstehman@earthlink.net wrote:

> I was with you here, but your example of Jack in another post lost me
> again, since that made it sound like action was required for screen
> time.

Warned you it was oversimplified.  Made it sound not only like 
action was required, but like skill-roll-based action was required for 
screen time.  Which is not.
 
> Here's a quick example.  My character was introduced to a new group
> (new to both me and my character).  According to his history, my
> character, a courtly guard, spent a *lot* of time quietly observing.
> The first few sessions, that is mostly what he did.  My character was
> watching and learning the other PCs.  By your definition, did he have
> screen time?

Yes and no.  For you, yes - you were getting something out of the 
session, taking "action" even if it was only within the character's 
head.

For everyone else, no, except in pbem, where you can share your 
character's head with others.  That can be a problem if that's all the 
screen time your character ever gets, but that's a side issue - the 
important thing is that /you're/ getting (one assumes) a 
satisfactory share of the roleplaying.  (And an extra share of the 
pizza, unless the others are willing to talk with their mouths full.)

That's the sort of thing that conventional character generation 
systems throw up their hands in despair over.

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

screen time == roleplaying time

From: "M. Jason Knight" 
> > Here's a quick example.  My character was introduced to a new group
> > (new to both me and my character).  According to his history, my
> > character, a courtly guard, spent a *lot* of time quietly observing.
> > The first few sessions, that is mostly what he did.  My character was
> > watching and learning the other PCs.  By your definition, did he have
> > screen time?
> 
> Yes and no.  For you, yes - you were getting something out of the 
> session, taking "action" even if it was only within the character's 
> head.
> 
I've often enjoyed playing quite laid back characters.  In one
Bushido campaign I played a priest.  Bushido goes out of it's 
way to emphasise that priests are respected and, with exceptions,
non-violent.  The end result of this was that I spent most combats 
sitting and watching the samauri party carve up various opposition.

While the other player thought I was nuts there was still opportunity
to interact.  At one point in a combat the GM described someone
as "falls to the ground and lays there screaming".  My immediate
response was "I step in to tend to his wounds".  This caught both
the GM and the players by surprise since in most systems an
unarmed person in combat is blade-fodder.  However, when the 
GM pointed out that the way was blocked by one of the thugs
I simply stepped in front of him and waited for him to move.  Since
my actions suited both the character and the culture the thug shuffled
back out of the way before going back to trying to pound the 
samauri's head in.

Personally I've always enjoyed the way that roleplaying can be used
to challenge people's view of the world.  In that case the whole idea
of non-violent, respected priests grabbed me as a good way to say
"This isn't AD&D".  Maybe it's because I GM a lot that I tend to 
think in terms of the total situation.

Mind you, that also taught me that the GM has to respect that 
sort of character.  That campaign was simply too combat-oriented 
and after an entire session spent sitting on the dock watching the
party rampage across a series of boats...
"What's your action, Chris?".
"I splash my feet in the water"
"That's what you said last time"
"Yeah, and for the last half hour your only action has been 'I 
attack him'."
"Hmph.  Well I could do with some healing"
"Then stop carving up peasants and come sit by me for a while.
I can explain why your actions are inherently futile".
"FUTILE?  But these peasants are suspected of encouraging
rebellion"
GM: "Uh guys, Can I point out that you're on opposite sides
of the harbour".

... I retired the character.  The GM complained that the character
balanced the party out, so I told him to introduce an NPC and let
me play a central character.

It can be extra work for a GM keeping all the characters in the
play, but it's often a nice break from running combat.  I always
found it easier to keep six or seven people focussed on their 
character and the situation than run combat for six or seven 
combatants.. maybe my combat system was just too complex.

Chris Tutty

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

screen time == roleplaying time

> From: M. Jason Knight 
> 
> Yes and no.  For you, yes - you were getting something out of the 
> session, taking "action" even if it was only within the character's 
> head.

Then I'm with you.
 
> For everyone else, no, except in pbem, where you can share your 
> character's head with others.

Or maybe not. (:-)  There's always after-game debriefing available.
But is it necessary for someone else to see it in order to consider
it roleplaying?

Incidentally, in my example, as I discovered later, everyone else was
getting quite a bit out of it, too.  In fact, it turned out to be
rather critical bit of setup for my character.
 
> That's the sort of thing that conventional character generation 
> systems throw up their hands in despair over.

Now you lost me again.

--- Jeff Stehman




----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

screen time == roleplaying time

On 9 Dec 00, at 14:56, jbstehman@earthlink.net wrote:

> Then I'm with you.

I thought as much.

> Or maybe not. (:-)  There's always after-game debriefing available.

That's thirdhand, though.  It's not a perfect world.

> But is it necessary for someone else to see it in order to consider it
> roleplaying?

No.  But sooner or later you do have to have a speaking part.  Call 
that the "Jason's Imaginary Perfectly Balanced Roleplaying Game" 
version of disadvantages.  You spend your points to buy excuses 
for screen time, you get points back for providing hooks for other 
players to connect their characters to, and reasons to yield the 
spotlight to them.

> Incidentally, in my example, as I discovered later, everyone else was
> getting quite a bit out of it, too.  In fact, it turned out to be
> rather critical bit of setup for my character.

?  They were getting quite a bit out of you doing nothing?  Very 
Zen.

> Now you lost me again.

I mean you could have had a character who'd spent all his points 
on underwater basketweaving, and someone else could have 
laboriously allocated their points based on precisely the scenario 
the GM was running for, and you'd both be getting equal screen 
time.  The conventional systems can neither predict that, control 
that, or offer a functional way to balance that.

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

screen time == roleplaying time

M. Jason Knight wrote:

>No.  But sooner or later you do have to have a speaking part.  Call 
>that the "Jason's Imaginary Perfectly Balanced Roleplaying Game" 
>version of disadvantages.  You spend your points to buy excuses 
>for screen time, you get points back for providing hooks for other 
>players to connect their characters to, and reasons to yield the 
>spotlight to them.

When are you going to publish JIPBRG?  Sounds like an an interesting
game.
--
Tim Hall, http://www.kalyr.com

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever"
 - Spinal Tap
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/

screen time == roleplaying time

On 10 Dec 00, at 5:19, Tim Hall wrote:

> When are you going to publish JIPBRG?  Sounds like an an interesting
> game. -- Tim Hall, http://www.kalyr.com

If I published it, it wouldn't very well be imaginary, would it?  Hmm?


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/