Difference between revisions of "Game"

Latest revision as of 17:03, 7 November 2006

On Account of our discussion on Friday, I'm intrigued about running a game with much more politicking, much less group unity, PKs, etc. Vampire naturally lends itself to this, as does City of Tears (I just saw the Departed...), but I'd be open to basically any setting for this.

Jason: point well taken, and I think you're right. In that vein, a take on one of Matt's proposals might be interesting: everybody makes their character, then makes a couple of supporting characters relevant to their character. If a session comes up where one or more other "main" characters are not involved, the "lead" for that session could hand out supporting character sheets to players whose characters were excluded from that session's action.

Gabe: Hmm, I like the idea of us making our own backup characters. Very neat. Also Ed's idea for a RPG could work really well with this idea too, though his seems more about group unity. Anyway I'd be down with a game like this.

--Jason 18:16, 19 October 2006 (MDT) I have been thinking about this a lot. One thing I am wondering about is/are factions. Lets assume that each player has a character involved in some sort of machinations. And as you have mentioned each of us have a primary character, and some number of secondary characters, wouldnt it be natural for our secondary characters to be aligned with our primary ones? It would be hard (and relatively useless) for your secondary character to scheme against your primary one. This doesnt mean it isnt possible, because I am certain it is. It just means someone needs to have a better idea than the one I was thinking about.

--BenofZongo 15:44, 20 October 2006 (MDT)Yeah, that would be problematic: it's something I've thought of as well. I guess as you said in your first response, the point isn't necessarily to have the characters be a non-group, more that they shouldn't HAVE to be a group. In the vaguest of terms, my plan would be to bring the characters together, but then let them decide how much/if at all they want to stay together. However, just for shits and giggles, I guess my plan was to let the characters that walk off still get game time: when their plot lines surface, the other players wouldn't be left sitting around by giving them semi-npcs (that might actually develop into main characters) to play, to keep everyone in the action. Of course, for scheming type stuff, this mechanic wouldn't work at all. As an aside, I don't really have a genre/game system I'm terribly excited about right now...in fact, the only game I was ever truly inspired to create was the Iliadic game. Every other time I've run something, it's been based on player input. As such, I just figured I'd put a bit in here soliciting people's desired genre for a more open-ended, do-whatever-you-want, more focused on intrigue, etc., kind of game. Once I have an idea what time, or setting, or whatever, people want to see, I can go to town starting to design my game world/system.

--Edmiao 16:26, 20 October 2006 (MDT)I don't understand what you mean by "intrigue" based game, which it sounds like Jason really really wants to play. could someone spell this out for me with a specific example?

--BenofZongo 17:32, 20 October 2006 (MDT)Well, I admit that my grasp on the idea is tenuous, but I'm trying to self edumacate. When I say "intrigue" heavy, the way I envision it is that there are no "missions": the sense of where to go, and what to do, are much hazier. Second, Enemies and friends are much less clearly defined. Third, consequences for actions are typically enhanced, necessitating much greater subtlety in how the players approach a problem (example: in Vampire 2nd edition, if you killed another vampire, the uber nasty Sheriff vampire of the city came and killed you in return. So, if you want to whack somebody, you better cover your tracks damn well, especially since lots of vampires could mind control you into telling them that you did it...). Third, and this applies mostly to my style of GMing, there would be much less emphasis on making the characters "good guys", also, much less emphasis by me on making the players act as a group: There might still be a hook to bring everyone together, but beyond that, who does what with whom is basically up to the players. Along with the no "missions" thing goes that the plot line is much more open ended: player defined goals, ambitions, and actions set what the characters pursue in game.

--Edmiao 18:32, 20 October 2006 (MDT)Sounds like PA to me.

--Jason 18:45, 20 October 2006 (MDT)How is that at all like PA? How often do characters do things without other characters when their player is present? How many characters have subplots (not plots that recruit the others) that run significant portions of the game? PA has been a strictly missions based game to this time. We get a task, everyone gets together and does that until the task is completed. Actually that could describe every game we have played: meet, get task, accomplish, repeat.

--Edmiao 19:38, 20 October 2006 (MDT)frequently characters are going off to do their own thing. half the party will be in one place, half in another doing something unrelated. take Grant and Angus in the tunnels exploring that room. or Shennong and Angus and Sam went to ghostville, sarah was not interested, so she went to do something else. turned out to be related, but still, the intent was that she was on her own. please provide a concrete example of what you are thinking so i may understand.

--Jason 19:56, 20 October 2006 (MDT)In those examples you cite the player of the character who didnt participate was not present, had they been present they would have gone along. It is always that way. Like in the last PA arc, Sam was basically forced to come into the city and do this stuff he had no interest in doing (and in fact was averse to doing), or else I as a player would have had nothing to do in that session. Our characters have little to no life outside of the group tasks we do, and when we do things they are virtually never contrary to goals the players all share (except when Harry Greenhill killed Hol Giamata). In almost all cases the only times the group separates for significant periods of time are because on an average night only half the players attend. The times when we separate and the players are here everyone else knows where you go and what youre doing and why. Our characters are basically members of a cub scout troop. If you want to go get kool aid, be sure to let the scoutmaster know where you go.

--BenofZongo 14:03, 21 October 2006 (MDT)Although perhaps I don't feel as strongly about it as Jason, i largely agree. There have been plotlines in my games that focus on individual players, but they are the exception, not the rule. The only one I can think of off the top of my head was Ethan's business with Scarlet/Melisande in Champions. Admittedly, it's partly deliberate, since like I've said I like the idea of group unity, etc, blah blah blah. It's something I've always been drawn to, and now, unfortunately, it's become habit. However, I'd also like to point out that in order to have a character-driven game, it will be necessary to alter character creation: players will have to dig deep and create extensive, nuanced backgrounds in order for their character to play a significant portion in the plot. Since not everyone cares for that, I may offer (if ever this aptly titled "game" gets off the ground) a "make your character sheet, and I'll give you a background" option, just in case (although i'd much prefer people created their own).

--BenofZongo 14:46, 21 October 2006 (MDT)Before I forget, I'd still like to hear preferences for a setting for this sort of game...I've got ideas I'd like to write down, but I can't get them concrete without a time/tech level/supernatural level.

--BenofZongo 18:59, 21 October 2006 (MDT)Too late...I was just reading the wikipedia entry on world of darkness, and I think that this "game" will be inspired by that concept and the movie/book "night watch". More info to come.

--67.183.58.61 19:36, 22 October 2006 (MDT)The more I think about this, the less I think its a GMing issue. Backgrounds for characters and such are great, but they arent what lead to a different style of game. I think our games unfold as they do because thats how I players prefer. The GM is only one man. Sure, probably more important individually than any other player, but not more important than all the players collectively. The only way to have more intrigue is for players to seek it out, and since we as players dont do so, I dont think any sort of change is going to make it happen. We should just keep on the course we currently follow.

--BenofZongo 19:53, 22 October 2006 (MDT)I disagree, but I daresay it will be quite some time before we see who's right. Currently, if I'm not mistaken, the next slots for GMing are Ed, then Jason, then possibly me again. So it'll be a while if ever I make an attempt at a more player plot oriented game. It can never hurt to try: if people don't like it, you just scrap it.

--Edmiao 23:50, 22 October 2006 (MDT)oh shit, i edited an old version of the page, let's see if i can fix...

--Edmiao 23:43, 22 October 2006 (MDT)Actually, in the examples i mentioned, we had large player turnout and were running 2 to 3 split groups simultaneously. I remember because my character really wanted to do one thing and several others wanted to do another, and we split up. Let me site specifically why I thought that sounded like PA, and you can tell me why I misunderstand you. Sarah and Shennong stayed behind to watch Joey's place...but ended up going to Littleton while the rest of the group was off meeting the crominers. Sam and Shennong wanted to talk to the mutants while Sarah and Grant just wanted to go enlist the mercs, so we went without the group to the muties. Sam, Angus and Shennong went ghost hunting while simulaneously Sarah, and some others went towards the lake and found that other chapel (yes turned out to be related, but it's the intentions that I speak of). Next, or maybe previously, Shennong really really wanted to cure that zombo guy....o shit if forgot his name, meanwhile no one came with him and they were all off I think it was scrounging. I distinctly recall later Shennong was tending his cured zombo and was unable to attend the explorations in the tunnel that culminated in the grenade. Later, back at Joey's half the party went into town to do some trading, Shennong and Sarah hung around Joey's doing work. I also recall Sam and Shennong going off alone to visit the dogs while others were doing their own thing. Maybe these examples are not what you have in mind. They are in orbit around a central plot devised by the GM. I think maybe you want the players to be creating the plotlines. Something like Shennong wants to open a hospital in three rivers where all manner of sick come to be healed while Sara leads a coup to take over falls, while Grant gets married and settles down at Joeys, while Angus opens up a blacksmith shop. Those examples distinctly lack imagination, but is that more in the trend of what you are thinking?

--Jason 12:53, 23 October 2006 (MDT) I think you see it now. All of those things, while accomplished temporally and spatially disparate, were working on a single unified plotline. We needed x and y to accomplish z, and it made the most sense for the group to split to accomplish them. For an intrigue based game to work the players need to be the primary plot impetus. Instead of being reactive (which is how we are now, the GM creates and the players react), the players need to be proactive and the GM reactive. After last session on WHFRP I dont know if we can do it. When things got slow, instead of being motivated to find our own story, we all seemed to lag a little. Maybe we had too many fries and onion rings. It has always been my opinion that the best games are run by the players, and the GM is nothing but a facilitator. This is not a majority opinion, however, and I understand this. It seems clear to me that our group prefers to enjoy a character and work inside a story the GM is creating. Thats fine, its exactly what we have been doing all along, and when we have had opportunities for other things we havent taken them (me included). We can just keep our current formula and everyone will be content.

--BenofZongo 13:18, 23 October 2006 (MDT)I'm not content to be content (at least if the rest of my life is any indication)! I've got a few ideas I plan to implement in this bidness...next time I run a one shot, it will probably be in the all-new, all-ripped off from Night Watch and World of Darkness, world I've been working on. We'll see if people like/dislike/kill the GM it.

--Jason 13:31, 23 October 2006 (MDT) Im sure you all know Im not content to be content either. I just came here to add something related to this intrigue subject: an example. Im not sure how well I can remember it so forgive me if its less than stellar. In the Forged in Steel chronicle (yet to be described) my character, Klaus, felt sleighted by Modius, the prince of Gary. So when he had extra time he (without other players implicit knowledge) did all sorts of investigating into Modius' intentions. He hired NPCs, worked with NPC vampires etc. Whenever he uncovered evidence of Modius messing with anyone, he immediately told whomever was being messed with, to forge a bond with them and lay the foundations for a future plan. Soon there was evidence Modius was messing with a PC, so that got him upset. Eventually he did something Klaus couldnt stand and he went to those he had contacted with a plan to take him out. This included recruiting all the other PCs, some had been sleighted, some had not, but in the end they could all see the writing on the wall. We formed a plan and proceeded to attempt to remove him. And remove him we did, though it opened a large can of worms, not the least of which was he was able to escape and we thought we accidentally killed another vampire. None of this was the GMs plan, in fact normally when the GM did have a plan we as players failed it, sometimes miserably (we allowed Lodin to die, for instance). We often worked together as players, and we often had mutual plans, but it wasnt necessary. We knew without support we could each easily be killed, so sometimes we stood behind each other even when we disagreed. But in the end I believe that our characters all put their individual goals above achieving group goals, and group goals were only important insofar as they advanced individual plans.

--Jason 17:05, 6 November 2006 (MST)I just saw Night Watch. First, Im retarded and can hardly follow subtitled movies. So that means I didnt completely get it. What are you taking from it, the Light vs Dark thing? The licensing? The Russian language?

--Matts 18:34, 6 November 2006 (MST)If I ran a Night Watch game, it'd be two hours of me shouting in a foreign language dropping LSD, and arbitrarily turning PCs into pivotal, mythical plot animals. An hour before the session ended, there'd be a huge combat where your target got randomly selected and had a 50% chance of being in a video game. At the end, I'd jump on the table, scream "There are no winners in life!!!!" and fall over in an epileptic siezure.

--BenofZongo 16:03, 7 November 2006 (MST)The only thing I'm really taking from nightwatch is the open-endedness of powers: ie, not differentiating strongly between vampires/werewolves/mages/whatever: they're all supernatural, and you can sort of mix and match to suit your character.