Anybody know the title?

[specks]

Not too long ago someone wrote a book or a series of articles on how a player can liven up an otherwise dull rpg session. One of those ideas listed was identifying an otherwise ordindary NPC or mook and the PC would unexpectedly launch into knowing who the guy was and probably go into another plot hook. Does anybody know the name of the book or articles written and where it maybe located?

Thanks in advance

 

[Tewligan]

Hm - if it's what I'm thinking of, I THINK it was an article by Tracy Hickman in Dragon a couple years back. I think he had a couple of articles in there about his idea of how a player can liven up the game. From what I read of his style, I don't think I'd much like to have him at my table, FWIW.

 

[specks]

Thanks, the name does sound familiar. I'll look it up from there. I'm afraid our GM is becoming a bit dull in our sessions and I hope to "liven" things up a bit but not too much.

 

[Urbannen]

"Not too much" is right. My experience is that dull GMs and players are dull because they prefer being dull.

 

[The_Gneech]

"Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering" by Robin Laws, perhaps? OOP and hard to find, but well worth it!

-The Gneech

 

[Ilium]

Actually this ability (some NPC encountered knows/is known by a PC) is one of the events on the excellent Swashbuckling Cards, available from Barsoomcore's Scratch Factory:

http://www.scratchfactory.com/Games.php

There's lots of good stuff in there that lets the players impact the story. See if you can get your DM to use them.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

The aforementioned article by Tracy Hickman sparked a debate that played out in the letters section of Dragon Magazine between Mr. Hickman and Monte Cook. Mr. Cook criticized the article as promoting a disruptive playing style, while Mr. Hickman defended it by indicating that the game is just as much the players' game as it is the GM's.

Unforunately, I don't remember the specific issues of Dragon that the article and the letters appeared.

 

[Ilium]

The aforementioned article by Tracy Hickman sparked a debate that played out in the letters section of Dragon Magazine between Mr. Hickman and Monte Cook. Mr. Cook criticized the article as promoting a disruptive playing style, while Mr. Hickman defended it by indicating that the game is just as much the players' game as it is the GM's.

Unforunately, I don't remember the specific issues of Dragon that the article and the letters appeared.

That's why I like the cards. It encourages the players to contribute, but limits the frequency of it by how many cards the GM chooses to give out.

 

[Urbannen]

It seems like a lot of DMs get very upset if you try to do something like creating a previously existing relationship with a random NPC, even when such relationship adds flavor only.

The model seems to be DM: active, players: reactive. DMs become this kind of father authority or pack leader - you only get what he gives, you only act when you're given permission, and you better be grateful when he gives you something.

I like a more interactive style, both as a DM and player.

 

[Tewligan]

The aforementioned article by Tracy Hickman sparked a debate that played out in the letters section of Dragon Magazine between Mr. Hickman and Monte Cook. Mr. Cook criticized the article as promoting a disruptive playing style, while Mr. Hickman defended it by indicating that the game is just as much the players' game as it is the GM's.

Yep, I remember that. Some of the examples Tracy gave from his own gameplay were running around continually opening doors and releasing monsters before the rest of the party could catch him, and spitting in the face of an NPC during "boring" negotiations, which led to the death of more than one party member. Haha! At another point, he also compared receiving the BoVD-focused issue of Dragon in his mailbox to an act of terrorism. That guy's a firecracker!