Revision as of 23:36, 2 November 2006

Lately we have had a lot of discussion about where we are going, and its been in each game. People seem to have some idea what they want, yet we arent getting it communicated as succinctly as we could. I propose that we use this page to discuss these issues.

The Possibilities

Everyone rank the following items from 1-5 (unique, 1 is most):
NPC Interaction
Puzzle Solving
Storylines
Character Development
Combat

--Jason 16:31, 31 October 2006 (MST)My ranks: Storylines (1), Character Development (2), NPC Interaction (3), Puzzle solving (4), Combat (5)

--Matts 20:36, 31 October 2006 (MST)I'd say that the most important thing to me is character development, as in, having a good role to play. Following that would be NPC interactions and PC interactions, as to me those make up the bulk of roleplaying. Storylines are good, but for me only inasmuch as they advance changes in the characters or genuine conflicts to roleplay. Combat i'd rank pretty low, but it is a handy method for resolving conflict (one of the reasons I like that Dogs in the Vineyard system is that it abstracts the concept of conflict, so that combat isn't really any different from fast-talking). Puzzle solving is neat, but both in inventing and solving puzzles, it sometimes seems too much of a chore.

I like to be the badass in gaming as much as the next guy, but ultimately, I'm the most fulfilled during witty repartee or a weighty emotional conflict with another PC.

--DietertheBold 00:50, 02 November 2006 (MST) I'd have to say (1)Storylines, (2)NPC Interaction, (3)Character Development, (4)Puzzle Solving and finally Combat. If I don't feel like I'm part of an interesting story, then I wonder why I'm playing. My role could be totatlly support or background so long as it's an interesting part in an interesting story, but I want to feel part of something. Character Development takes third place because I feel it stems from NPC/PC & some PC/PC interaction. I come to gaming to have fun with interesting people, but at base we're still the same people, so interacting with each other can become similar from game to game. It's important to me to run into interesting new people (NPCs) to bring some variety to the game as well as new stimulii to grow from. Puzzle solving's fun so long as it supports (1) - (3). Puzzle solving as a game on its own isn't fun for me. I find combat as fun as the next person, but it can take too long and seem like that's the focus of the game. I'd really love to speed up combat somehow, so we get fast, tense and exciting, but not for hours.

--BenofZongo 19:21, 2 November 2006 (MST)Storylines 1, Character Development 2, NPC interaction 3, Combat 4, Puzzle Solving 5.

NPC Interaction

Whats this? Playing in character. Meeting interesting NPC's (and taking their stuff), learning things from them, and basically exploring what your character has become. In many ways this is micro story.

Puzzle Solving

This encompasses figuring out what is behind the villains plot, discovering and solving riddles, and otherwise using ingenuity to pass obstacles. Often this is the equivalent of solving goals by finesse.

Storylines

Participating in a storyline that is of the highest quality. This is more about macro than micro story.

Character Development

Watching your character grow and change, including through experience and evolution of ideas.

--Edmiao 16:06, 2 November 2006 (MST)This is a more complicated concept than it seems at first blush. I, the player, make a character. Do I want to see him develop and change? sure. How does that happen? Perhaps the character is young and I have a plan for his maturation in game over time, which can be interesting; this is planned by the player. On the other hand, maybe I have no plan and he changes in response to PC/NPC/plot interactions; this is an interface between the player and the world and is unplanned. The first case is somewhat artificial in that I planned it out. The second case is haphazard, because maybe the characters worldview might not be challenged in the course of events. food for thought.

--Jason 18:54, 2 November 2006 (MST)I think you can define Character Development however you wish, and we dont even have to agree on what it is exactly. In the end, there is only one category to define it all. Personally, I am less interested in planned development, but instead I find that which evolves with the game and happens in a way I could never have conceived to be much more interesting.

Combat

Throwing dice, smacking things, and generally accomplishing goals by force.

--BenofZongo 19:21, 2 November 2006 (MST)Although I put this second to last, I actually think this is a very important part of most games: I think it serves as a nice way to break up tension and give the players a chance to just let loose. I gave it a 4 because I think the other elements are more "important" but all in all, i think that unless you are playing a setting where combat isn't a big part of things, running good combats, and running enough of them, is crucial for game flow.

Points of View

How important are the players? How important are the characters? What is the GM's role? Use these spaces to discuss opinions on these items.

Player Importance

What is the players role in the story? Do we react to a story the GM tells, or do we, as players, determine courses to which the GM reacts? How much effect do players have on what our characters do?

--BenofZongo 19:26, 2 November 2006 (MST)The players are all important. In the end, though, I don't think the other questions have constant answers. They vary by player, by GM, by story, and by game system. I think players can express a desire to have the GM be more reactive or more proactive, but the extent to which that actually plays out is determined largely by the play styles of each player.

Character Importance

What is the characters relative power level? What is the role of the characters in the world at large? How large of an effect can the characters make on the world around them?

The GM

What would you like the GM to do? Be a fair and impartial mediator? Be a story narrator who involves characters? Conjure a vision that the players buy into and share?

--BenofZongo 19:36, 2 November 2006 (MST)I think that first and foremost, the role of the GM has nothing to do with the game world itself. The GM is responsible, more so than anyone else, for making sure that everyone in the group has fun. We all come to play to enjoy ourselves, and the GM makes sure that the game doesn't get skewed to a particular player or a particular play style that excludes anyone. So in that sense, the GM is highly reactionary: he or she should learn to sense the play styles and interests of his or her various players and attempt to provide parts of the story that fit this. Oddly, though, inserting story elements is really a proactive, rather than reactive, GMing approach, so I'm not sure you can separate the two unless you have strong unity of vision in a group. My other big stump for GMing is buy-in. as people become more and more familiar with the various rules systems, we are designing games, groups, and running scenarios more and more by committee. I think this has its ups, in the sense that it enhances fairness and thereby enjoyment, but also it's downs, in that the focus moves more and more towards absolute power balance and an inadvertent encouragement of power gaming (not in the deliberate sense, just that people's characters end up being the absolute best they can be for the points available).

Campaigns

We all like campaigns more than one-shots, yet do you feel it is more important to cling to any campaign or test out varying ideas until the right campaign presents itself? How do we decide?

--BenofZongo 20:52, 2 November 2006 (MST)I think this question is complicated by the fact that campaigns have an initial period where people are excited about the game, but only rare games can hold that level of excitement. In my experience, it's basically impossible to tell when that works out. I bring this up because this makes "testing" campaigns sort of impossible without playing them for quite some time, to the point where you're basically playing that campaign. Also, I'm not averse to playing a bunch of short campaigns to try to "test out" ideas, I guess what I'm saying is that I'd rather be a player in that sort of a setup than a GM. I usually create the world from the ground up each time I design a campaign, and that's just too much work for me for a short campaign. I also don't think we should run too many games in parallel, especially not if one or two of those games are long campaigns: the longer the breaks are between sets of sessions, and the more frequent, the less in the "groove" of their character people will be, and the less of storyline and character development will occur, which tend to be peoples rank one and two. I just think that part of making a campaign good is sticking with it once you've decided you want to give it a serious shot.

--67.183.58.61 21:15, 2 November 2006 (MST)One thing that worked well in the past (with a different group) was having a meetup before play began to jointly create the world. This way the players have a say in what is around them, and they know what they are getting before it all begins. I think often players expect a game which is very different from what they get. Also I think we need to be more strict on enforcing collective character generation. Players should work together when making characters so we can have at least some semblance of commonality between the characters. Something that can form a thread for the game.

--Matts 22:36, 2 November 2006 (MST)I think a lot of this is incumbent upon the design of the campaign. If the GM designates a central hook, it's easier to keep players within the same arena, which is important. It's trickier to do this than it sounds, but it's really important.

Player Involvement

How do we handle player absence? What does this mean to the story, especially when an absent player is vital?

Whining

How do we get Jason to stop his goddamn infernal whining?

--Matts 19:51, 2 November 2006 (MST)How do we get cold fusion? While we're working on impossible problems, let's dedicate brainpower to something that could make some decent money!

Evolution vs Inertia

At what point does a campaign have a life of its own? How do we know when an idea has run its course? Could Darwin beat up Newton?