On Sunday at Stabcon I played in a game of Primetime Adventures. The GM
was a fairly old-school RPGer with a background in theatre (real, not
amateur). I knew two of the other players reasonably well, and they're
also fairly long-term gamers. I don't know about the other two.
You've probably heard about the system, but I'll touch on it anyway from
a mechanical perspective. It's so simple it's almost non-existent: you
basically have one stat, "screen presence", which is a baseline measure
of how good you are at everything. You have "edges" (broadly,
skill/advantage/disadvantage packages) such as "run-down detective" or
"heroic pilot", and "connections" (people you know, though not
necessarily friends); you can invoke these up to three times each per
episode (broadly, = gaming session) to get a +1 to your screen presence.
Also, everyone has to have an Issue, some basic flaw that they're
working through - commitment phobia, alcoholism, etc. (You can also have
a Nemesis and a Personal Set, but these didn't really come into play.)
The GM ("producer" - didn't we give up having cutesy terms for GMs and
PCs a few years back) gets a budget instead - twice the total screen
presence plus a bit more, but each point is only usable once. When he's
spent it, it goes into the "fan mail" pool; that's not directly usable,
but any player can give points to any _other_ player for a bit of "good
play". Once you've been given points, you can spend them.
The game runs scene by scene; in each case, the aim is to identify the
"conflict", i.e. what is going to get resolved in this scene: "will you
let us into your camp", "I'm searching the room for clues", "we're
having a duel with swords", or whatever else. This always starts as one
PC versus the GM; other PCs can take sides. Each involved party draws
cards equal to screen presence (+1 for an edge, +1 per point of fan mail
spent) or in the GM's case budget expended; whichever side has more red
cards wins, and whichever player gets the highest card gets to narrate
what happens. (Note that about half the time this will be a player on
the losing side of the conflict.)
For a single session, that's basically it. For multiple sessions you
have variable screen presence - every character will have a "spotlight
episode" where it's 3 (and nobody else's is), and some background
episodes where it's just 1.
The other slightly strange thing about PTA, of course, is the campaign
generation system: for about the first hour of play (of the first
session only), we tossed around ideas about the sort of game we'd play.
This was quite fun, though I'm not sure how much I'd have enjoyed it if
my idea hadn't been substantially the one that got adopted; even so,
everyone had reasonably significant input.
In theory, the players should in some way rotate the choice of what
scene happens next (and do the initial narration, up to the point of the
conflict). I don't know how that's meant to be determined, but we were
all traditional enough gamers that we tended to lean on the GM perhaps
more than we "should" have.
Overall, it is very much a collaborative story-telling game rather than
a conventional RPG: I don't know how much protection you have for your
own character, but with other people potentially narrating events any
characterisation will have to be in fairly broad strokes.
I think I might enjoy playing this occasionally as a short pickup game,
particularly at conventions, but I can't see myself dumping the
mainstream systems in favour of it; apart from anything else, I enjoy
doing detailed research while preparing a scenario, and in this game
you're improvising _everything_. Also, all the players need to be on
their toes; someone who's had a hard day at work, or is just tired, will
noticeably slow the whole game down. That said, I'll still buy a copy if
I find one that can be shipped from the UK.
--
Roger, gaming grognard
Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Roger Burton West wrote: > On Sunday at Stabcon I played in a game of Primetime Adventures. The GM > was a fairly old-school RPGer with a background in theatre (real, not > amateur). I knew two of the other players reasonably well, and they're > also fairly long-term gamers. I don't know about the other two. Being one of the 'other two', I supposed I should put in my 2p's worth :) > The other slightly strange thing about PTA, of course, is the campaign > generation system: for about the first hour of play (of the first > session only), we tossed around ideas about the sort of game we'd play. > This was quite fun, though I'm not sure how much I'd have enjoyed it if > my idea hadn't been substantially the one that got adopted; even so, > everyone had reasonably significant input. I get the impression that this is supposed to be a key part of the game, especially when what gets adopted is an amalgam of ideas from several people. Certainly riffing off each other's ideas can produce something more interesting that the players could have come up with individually. It wouldn't had occurred to me to make my character German rather than British, for example. > In theory, the players should in some way rotate the choice of what > scene happens next (and do the initial narration, up to the point of the > conflict). I don't know how that's meant to be determined, but we were > all traditional enough gamers that we tended to lean on the GM perhaps > more than we "should" have. I think it would take a few sessions to really get my head round the whole scene framing/conflict determination thing, because it's very different from a traditional RPG. > Overall, it is very much a collaborative story-telling game rather than > a conventional RPG: I don't know how much protection you have for your > own character, but with other people potentially narrating events any > characterisation will have to be in fairly broad strokes. In a longer campaign I think characterisation will be very much develop-in-play. > I think I might enjoy playing this occasionally as a short pickup game, > particularly at conventions, but I can't see myself dumping the > mainstream systems in favour of it; apart from anything else, I enjoy > doing detailed research while preparing a scenario, and in this game > you're improvising _everything_. Also, all the players need to be on > their toes; someone who's had a hard day at work, or is just tired, will > noticeably slow the whole game down. That said, I'll still buy a copy if > I find one that can be shipped from the UK. Same here. Only a Forgeite elitist would that consider games like this should completely replace more traditional allegedly 'incoherent' RPGs. Saying that, it is a game I want to play again, something I can't honestly say about 'Dogs in the Vinyard' which I played at Consternation last August. I think it's a game I need to play a couple of times before it 'clicks'. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:58:05PM -0600, Tim Hall wrote: >Being one of the 'other two', I supposed I should put in my 2p's worth :) Ah, it was you. I wasn't sure that "Tim" on the badge was the same as Tim Hall here and on Pyramid. >> The other slightly strange thing about PTA, of course, is the campaign >> generation system: for about the first hour of play (of the first >> session only), we tossed around ideas about the sort of game we'd play. >> This was quite fun, though I'm not sure how much I'd have enjoyed it if >> my idea hadn't been substantially the one that got adopted; even so, >> everyone had reasonably significant input. >I get the impression that this is supposed to be a key part of the game, >especially when what gets adopted is an amalgam of ideas from several >people. Yup. Given that games are explicitly meant to run for a limited period (I think it's 5 or 9 sessions/episodes), this is clearly something that's supposed to happen quite often. >Certainly riffing off each other's ideas can produce something more >interesting that the players could have come up with individually. It >wouldn't had occurred to me to make my character German rather than >British, for example. Thanks for pointing out that character generation was to some extent a process of consensus too - this might go some way to reducing the tendency of some players to come up with game-breaking characters. >> In theory, the players should in some way rotate the choice of what >> scene happens next (and do the initial narration, up to the point of the >> conflict). I don't know how that's meant to be determined, but we were >> all traditional enough gamers that we tended to lean on the GM perhaps >> more than we "should" have. >I think it would take a few sessions to really get my head round the >whole scene framing/conflict determination thing, because it's very >different from a traditional RPG. Agreed. It's something I'd like to try more of, but I think I'd want to learn it with other players from an experienced GM before I tried to run it for other people who hadn't previously met the game at all. >> Overall, it is very much a collaborative story-telling game rather than >> a conventional RPG: I don't know how much protection you have for your >> own character, but with other people potentially narrating events any >> characterisation will have to be in fairly broad strokes. >In a longer campaign I think characterisation will be very much >develop-in-play. The Edges in particular are nebulous enough that I don't suppose there will be any difficulty in coming up with back-story when it's needed. This certainly matches the televisual approach. -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>Ah, it was you. I wasn't sure that "Tim" on the badge was the same as RBW>Tim Hall here and on Pyramid. See, I think all Phoenyx members should be required to wear Phoenyx t-shirts to all gaming events, to avoid exactly this sort of thing. (We used to have an at-cost Cafepress store, but if it's still up, it's probably got a Gathering-specific design there now.) -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Karen J. Cravens wrote: > RBW>Ah, it was you. I wasn't sure that "Tim" on the badge was the same as > RBW>Tim Hall here and on Pyramid. The convention badges had first names in big letters, and surnames in tiny (about 5pt) text. Probably didn't help that I'd just signed as Tim H on the sign-up sheet. > See, I think all Phoenyx members should be required to wear Phoenyx > t-shirts to all gaming events, to avoid exactly this sort of thing. I wasn't wearing my Dreamlyrics T-shirt either :( This is the consequence of having a broken-down boiler and not having been able to do any laundry. But anyone who reads my blog should know what music I like, and recognise me by the band t-shirts I *was* wearing. :) > (We used to have an at-cost Cafepress store, but if it's still up, it's > probably got a Gathering-specific design there now.) How easy is to get Cafepress stuff in the UK, or is the shipping a killer? -- Tim (Hall) http://www.kalyr.com/weblog ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Tim Hall wrote: TH>The convention badges had first names in big letters, and surnames in TH>tiny (about 5pt) text. Probably didn't help that I'd just signed as Tim TH>H on the sign-up sheet. See, you should always sign up as "tim hall FROM THE PHOENYX" and all. TH>I wasn't wearing my Dreamlyrics T-shirt either :( This is the TH>consequence of having a broken-down boiler and not having been able to TH>do any laundry. Well, yeah, we'd probably insist that Phoenyx shirts at cons be clean and non-stinky and all. TH>But anyone who reads my blog should know what music I like, and TH>recognise me by the band t-shirts I *was* wearing. :) Well, there's that. On which note I'd like to say I have found some new music from your blog, and it's ALL STUPID "IMPORT PRICED" over here. TH>How easy is to get Cafepress stuff in the UK, or is the shipping a killer? There is now a cafepress.co.uk, but beyond that I know nothing. Also, why do they call the Canon printer thing a "background process" when for each page it prints it pops into the foreground and takes the focus away in the middle of trying to type a message? -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > > Also, why do they call the Canon printer thing a "background process" when > for each page it prints it pops into the foreground and takes the focus > away in the middle of trying to type a message? Doesn't happen to me, must be that old, decrepit, outdated version of Windows you're running. :P -Bill Hamilton ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Bill Hamilton wrote: BH>Doesn't happen to me, must be that old, decrepit, outdated version of BH>Windows you're running. :P Which is immune to WMF zero-day exploits, neener neener neener. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Karen J. Cravens wrote: > See, you should always sign up as "tim hall FROM THE PHOENYX" and all. What about "Tim Hall from Dreamlyrics?" Or Pyramid? :) (There were at least two other Pyramidians there, but I knew them already) > TH>But anyone who reads my blog should know what music I like, and > TH>recognise me by the band t-shirts I *was* wearing. :) > > Well, there's that. On which note I'd like to say I have found some new > music from your blog, and it's ALL STUPID "IMPORT PRICED" over here. Out of interested, which ones? > TH>How easy is to get Cafepress stuff in the UK, or is the shipping a killer? > > There is now a cafepress.co.uk, but beyond that I know nothing. Might be worth checking that out. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Tim Hall wrote: TH>What about "Tim Hall from Dreamlyrics?" Or Pyramid? :) (There were at TH>least two other Pyramidians there, but I knew them already) Okay, you could put those on there in the tiny print, I guess. :} TH>Out of interested, which ones? Mostly Autumn sounded interesting. I don't remember the other one or two. TH>Might be worth checking that out. Quite. Though I'd be half tempted to make my own shirts, since Cafepress is still somewhat limited (I wanted to print Mom a sweatshirt for Christmas, but they only had gray, which is just too... sweatshirty. So now I have a couple of white shirts, and the DIY stuff. Which we've had mixed results with back on the HP, but we have a Canon now, and I've been wanting to try it). -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote:
RBW>On Sunday at Stabcon I played in a game of Primetime Adventures. The GM
RBW>was a fairly old-school RPGer with a background in theatre (real, not
RBW>amateur). I knew two of the other players reasonably well, and they're
RBW>also fairly long-term gamers. I don't know about the other two.
So was Tim one of the first two, or the other two?
RBW>You've probably heard about the system, but I'll touch on it anyway from
Actually, no, that's what I wanted to hear more about.
RBW>a mechanical perspective. It's so simple it's almost non-existent: you
RBW>basically have one stat, "screen presence", which is a baseline measure
RBW>of how good you are at everything. You have "edges" (broadly,
RBW>skill/advantage/disadvantage packages) such as "run-down detective" or
RBW>"heroic pilot", and "connections" (people you know, though not
RBW>necessarily friends); you can invoke these up to three times each per
RBW>episode (broadly, = gaming session) to get a +1 to your screen presence.
RBW>Also, everyone has to have an Issue, some basic flaw that they're
RBW>working through - commitment phobia, alcoholism, etc. (You can also have
RBW>a Nemesis and a Personal Set, but these didn't really come into play.)
Any of that sound useful to swipe for other games?
RBW>The GM ("producer" - didn't we give up having cutesy terms for GMs and
RBW>PCs a few years back) gets a budget instead - twice the total screen
Yes. Yes, we did. (Heck, I still call D&D DMs GMs.)
RBW>presence plus a bit more, but each point is only usable once. When he's
RBW>spent it, it goes into the "fan mail" pool; that's not directly usable,
RBW>but any player can give points to any _other_ player for a bit of "good
RBW>play". Once you've been given points, you can spend them.
The fan mail thing sounded kind of interesting to me... I'm always looking
for nifty ways to increase the communication of that-was-cool between
players.
RBW>The game runs scene by scene; in each case, the aim is to identify the
RBW>"conflict", i.e. what is going to get resolved in this scene: "will you
RBW>let us into your camp", "I'm searching the room for clues", "we're
RBW>having a duel with swords", or whatever else. This always starts as one
RBW>PC versus the GM; other PCs can take sides. Each involved party draws
RBW>cards equal to screen presence (+1 for an edge, +1 per point of fan mail
RBW>spent) or in the GM's case budget expended; whichever side has more red
RBW>cards wins, and whichever player gets the highest card gets to narrate
RBW>what happens. (Note that about half the time this will be a player on
RBW>the losing side of the conflict.)
This is the part I'm never sure of. On the one hand, I kind of like
narrating things (I like to GM sometimes too), but on the other hand it's
kind of useful to have the gamemaster as the default "truth" of a world,
so that you've got all the players trying (with success, one hopes) to
synch their vision to his, versus all the players trying to negotiate a
shared vision. Less nebulous that way, it seems to me.
RBW>For a single session, th's basically it. For multiple sessions you
RBW>have variable screen presence - every character will have a "spotlight
RBW>episode" where it's 3 (and nobody else's is), and some background
RBW>episodes where it's just 1.
Way back pre-Fudge, when we were disillusioned by Champions but hadn't yet
picked up Fudge, I scribbled some notes for a superhero game (no, really,
I'm *not* a game designer, honest) where the point cost for an ability
wasn't based on an abstract "power level" but rather on how much screen
time it was worth. You could put a lot of points into a really trivial
power, and that meant the GM had to give it lots of screen time. (Or more
tactfully phrased, that indicated to the GM that you wanted to spend lots
of screen time on it.) I had just had the then-novel idea that you'd have
to *spend* points on disadvantages instead of getting points for them, and
we switched game systems. And genres.
RBW>The other slightly strange thing about PTA, of course, is the campaign
RBW>generation system: for about the first hour of play (of the first
RBW>session only), we tossed around ideas about the sort of game we'd play.
RBW>This was quite fun, though I'm not sure how much I'd have enjoyed it if
RBW>my idea hadn't been substantially the one that got adopted; even so,
RBW>everyone had reasonably significant input.
That's not really so strange, it's just that most times we consider that
to be part of picking the game, rather than the first part of the game
itself.
RBW>I think I might enjoy playing this occasionally as a short pickup game,
RBW>particularly at conventions, but I can't see myself dumping the
RBW>mainstream systems in favour of it; apart from anything else, I enjoy
RBW>doing detailed research while preparing a scenario, and in this game
RBW>you're improvising _everything_. Also, all the players need to be on
RBW>their toes; someone who's had a hard day at work, or is just tired, will
RBW>noticeably slow the whole game down. That said, I'll still buy a copy if
RBW>I find one that can be shipped from the UK.
I'm thinking we're going to acquire a copy too, if only to rob stuff from.
--
Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:44:53PM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote:
>>On Sunday at Stabcon I played in a game of Primetime Adventures. The GM
>>was a fairly old-school RPGer with a background in theatre (real, not
>>amateur). I knew two of the other players reasonably well, and they're
>>also fairly long-term gamers. I don't know about the other two.
>So was Tim one of the first two, or the other two?
Tim was one of the others - I've played with him at a previous Stabcon,
but I've known Phil and Kari for a few years.
>>You have "edges" (broadly,
>>skill/advantage/disadvantage packages) such as "run-down detective" or
>>"heroic pilot", and "connections" (people you know, though not
>>necessarily friends); you can invoke these up to three times each per
>>episode (broadly, = gaming session) to get a +1 to your screen presence.
>>Also, everyone has to have an Issue, some basic flaw that they're
>>working through - commitment phobia, alcoholism, etc. (You can also have
>>a Nemesis and a Personal Set, but these didn't really come into play.)
>Any of that sound useful to swipe for other games?
One could... but to a large extent they're designed to supplant
conventional mechanics, I think. Having an edge of "ex Special Forces
guy", for example, would mean that you had a bunch of relevant skills,
and that you might have some disadvantages from it (a trick knee, say),
and that you might know old military buddies, and so on.
Taking _House_ as an example since I've been watching it recently,
Foreman would have "Black former juvenile delinquent" as an edge; it
gives him skills (breaking into places), advantages (lets him play the
race card effectively) and disadvantages (negative reactions from some
people).
I'm not sure quite how the Personal Set idea is supposed to work; I
think it's the standard place your character is found in.
>>presence plus a bit more, but each point is only usable once. When he's
>>spent it, it goes into the "fan mail" pool; that's not directly usable,
>>but any player can give points to any _other_ player for a bit of "good
>>play". Once you've been given points, you can spend them.
>The fan mail thing sounded kind of interesting to me... I'm always looking
>for nifty ways to increase the communication of that-was-cool between
>players.
I got the feeling we weren't either awarding it or spending it as fast
as the system expected us to. Certainly we had a large pool of
unallocated fan mail most of the time.
>>The game runs scene by scene; in each case, the aim is to identify the
>>"conflict", i.e. what is going to get resolved in this scene: "will you
>>let us into your camp", "I'm searching the room for clues", "we're
>>having a duel with swords", or whatever else. This always starts as one
>>PC versus the GM; other PCs can take sides. Each involved party draws
>>cards equal to screen presence (+1 for an edge, +1 per point of fan mail
>>spent) or in the GM's case budget expended; whichever side has more red
>>cards wins, and whichever player gets the highest card gets to narrate
>>what happens. (Note that about half the time this will be a player on
>>the losing side of the conflict.)
>This is the part I'm never sure of. On the one hand, I kind of like
>narrating things (I like to GM sometimes too), but on the other hand it's
>kind of useful to have the gamemaster as the default "truth" of a world,
>so that you've got all the players trying (with success, one hopes) to
>synch their vision to his, versus all the players trying to negotiate a
>shared vision. Less nebulous that way, it seems to me.
This is absolutely a collaborative system (and one which genuinely
deserves to be called a "story-telling system"). This is not a game for
a GM who likes to build a detailed world and set PCs loose in it (which
is what I usually am, as a GM). It would be very hard to have any sort
of long-term plot which was kept as one player's secret, even if that
player were the GM; he'd have to get the narration at key points or
share the secret with the others.
>>For a single session, th's basically it. For multiple sessions you
>>have variable screen presence - every character will have a "spotlight
>>episode" where it's 3 (and nobody else's is), and some background
>>episodes where it's just 1.
>
>Way back pre-Fudge, when we were disillusioned by Champions but hadn't yet
>picked up Fudge, I scribbled some notes for a superhero game (no, really,
>I'm *not* a game designer, honest) where the point cost for an ability
>wasn't based on an abstract "power level" but rather on how much screen
>time it was worth. You could put a lot of points into a really trivial
>power, and that meant the GM had to give it lots of screen time. (Or more
>tactfully phrased, that indicated to the GM that you wanted to spend lots
>of screen time on it.) I had just had the then-novel idea that you'd have
>to *spend* points on disadvantages instead of getting points for them, and
>we switched game systems. And genres.
That's something I've been thinking about recently in the context of
GURPS (my system of choice). It's standard to say "you have X points
available, plus up to Y in disadvantages"; if disadvantages were really
worth negative points, you wouldn't have to put a cap on them. But
disadvantages actually _increase_ screen time for that character - I
can't go on the plane because I'm afraid of flying, I'm the one who gets
easily seduced by the femme fatale, or whatever.
Looking at it algebraically, one's saying:
A - D <= X
D <= Y
But I think a more interesting way to put it would be to acknowledge the
screen time effect explicitly and count disadvantages towards a
distinct, positive, point total:
A - D <= X
A + D <= Z
The mechanical result would be the same, but I think players might think
a bit more carefully about screen time if it were presented this way ("X
points available, total of ads plus disads no more than Z").
>>The other slightly strange thing about PTA, of course, is the campaign
>>generation system: for about the first hour of play (of the first
>>session only), we tossed around ideas about the sort of game we'd play.
>>This was quite fun, though I'm not sure how much I'd have enjoyed it if
>>my idea hadn't been substantially the one that got adopted; even so,
>>everyone had reasonably significant input.
>That's not really so strange, it's just that most times we consider that
>to be part of picking the game, rather than the first part of the game
>itself.
It's not something I've seen in a game before, even a nominally
universal one which might be expected to have such a component. I think
the reason for this is largely that, because this game is all
collaborative and improvised, there's no need for the GM to do massive
amounts of advance work; in a more conventional game it would put an
entirely unreasonable burden on him.
--
Roger, gaming grognard
Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote:
RBW>One could... but to a large extent they're designed to supplant
RBW>conventional mechanics, I think. Having an edge of "ex Special Forces
RBW>guy", for example, would mean that you had a bunch of relevant skills,
RBW>and that you might have some disadvantages from it (a trick knee, say),
RBW>and that you might know old military buddies, and so on.
True, but that would only really impact character generation... during
play, you just use the skills normally. Sort of a slightly-nebulous
package deal.
RBW>I'm not sure quite how the Personal Set idea is supposed to work; I
RBW>think it's the standard place your character is found in.
That's what it sounded like to me. Or rather, that's the place where your
character is automatically in the spotlight.
RBW>I got the feeling we weren't either awarding it or spending it as fast
RBW>as the system expected us to. Certainly we had a large pool of
RBW>unallocated fan mail most of the time.
Sounds like us and Fudge Points.
RBW>This is absolutely a collaborative system (and one which genuinely
RBW>deserves to be called a "story-telling system"). This is not a game for
RBW>a GM who likes to build a detailed world and set PCs loose in it (which
RBW>is what I usually am, as a GM). It would be very hard to have any sort
RBW>of long-term plot which was kept as one player's secret, even if that
RBW>player were the GM; he'd have to get the narration at key points or
RBW>share the secret with the others.
Maybe I've just never played with a group that's successfully gotten
together on a shared vision like that; we haven't tried it a lot. The one
Bad Improv incident that stands out in my (and Carl's) mind is the time we
were doing... well, I can't even remember what. We were on a college
campus, though, and somehow had the Bad Guy/Thing in our group's van, and
one player announced "I drive the van over the cliff and jump clear just
in time." Now, we'd all been working on the "no blocking" thing, but...
that just broke the scene for the rest of us, because it was on a mythical
Wichita college campus. You'd be hard pressed to find anything that
qualifies as a "cliff" anywhere in the *county*, much less on any of the
real college campuses.
And it wasn't that he was being abusive or anything, it was just that he
had a more, uh, flexible imagination than the rest of us. Maybe it just
would have taken practice, but I also think that some players Think
Different(tm). I think we have one such in our game right now, too.
RBW>The mechanical result would be the same, but I think players might think
RBW>a bit more carefully about screen time if it were presented this way ("X
RBW>points available, total of ads plus disads no more than Z").
Makes sense to me, yeah. I might re-value some things based on their
screen-time-appropriateness rather than their current character-success-
appropriateness, too, but I can't think of any specific examples.
RBW>It's not something I've seen in a game before, even a nominally
RBW>universal one which might be expected to have such a component. I think
RBW>the reason for this is largely that, because this game is all
RBW>collaborative and improvised, there's no need for the GM to do massive
RBW>amounts of advance work; in a more conventional game it would put an
RBW>entirely unreasonable burden on him.
It seems like (from your and others' descriptions) it's just a more
formalized and more extreme form of the common pre-game negotiations.
"What do you guys want to play next?" sort of thing.
--
Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >It seems like (from your and others' descriptions) it's just a more >formalized and more extreme form of the common pre-game negotiations. >"What do you guys want to play next?" sort of thing. Well... only if "common pre-game negotiations" means "everyone throws ideas into the pot and comes up with something jointly". It's absolutely not the usual "here are some games I could run, let's see who's interested in which of them". Collaboration is utterly vital to the way this game is set up. -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>Well... only if "common pre-game negotiations" means "everyone throws RBW>ideas into the pot and comes up with something jointly". It's absolutely RBW>not the usual "here are some games I could run, let's see who's RBW>interested in which of them". Collaboration is utterly vital to the way RBW>this game is set up. Well, yeah, that's what I meant by "more extreme." Some of our games have been "I'm gonna run a superhero game, what sort of characters were you guys interested in playing?" which sort of shapes the game collaboratively, though the GM is still the final arbiter. (I'm still just not ready to give that up, either as a GM *or* as a player.) -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
