Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5476970" data-attributes="member: 8835">And why can't a player say, &quot;Ah, we're back in Paris, where I spent a summer.&nbsp; I go look up my old friend who ran a bakery (says so on my sheet) and ask him about the cardinal's recent behabior.&nbsp; His customers are always telling him stuff, maybe he'll know something.&quot;The player has utilized a name he already referred to on his sheet (or even if he only mentioned spending a summer there), and it really isn't that game breaking.&nbsp; Paris SHOULD have a bakery, with a man who owns it, and it isn't abusive that the PC COULD know him, or that he MIGHT know something.&nbsp; Had the player claimed to know the king, that's abusive.&nbsp; But in my example, there's no harm, no foul.In Improv, this seems like it'd be OK.&nbsp; Is it OK in Shaman's game?Is it mostly OK, except when it becomes excessive (I know everybody in every town at level 1)?If Shaman's answer is &quot;Absolutely NOT!&nbsp; Your PCs will NEVER know anybody in my game until they've met them.&quot; that would be pretty extreme.&nbsp; And that just seems wrong.&nbsp; My limited understanding of Shaman's game is that it has a lot of NPCs with lot of relationships.&nbsp; I don't see what's wrong with priming the pump a little with the PCs having some relationships, too.&nbsp; At least to some junior NPCs.&nbsp; Or to let them invent (and the GM incorporate) some junior NPCs (which can lead to bigger stuff).Clarifying note for Shaman:I'm not fond of my concept of sandboxes.&nbsp; Shaman's &quot;social sandbox&quot; (my term) however fascinates me as it sets up a dynamic framework for NPC/PC interaction leading to story-able non-scripted adventures.&nbsp; In short, I think his idea is cool, so when he has this stance about PC background, I feel like he's hobbling it.&nbsp; So, read my statements as somebody who thinks your sandbox is&nbsp; very clever.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5476970, member: 8835"] And why can't a player say, "Ah, we're back in Paris, where I spent a summer. I go look up my old friend who ran a bakery (says so on my sheet) and ask him about the cardinal's recent behabior. His customers are always telling him stuff, maybe he'll know something." The player has utilized a name he already referred to on his sheet (or even if he only mentioned spending a summer there), and it really isn't that game breaking. Paris SHOULD have a bakery, with a man who owns it, and it isn't abusive that the PC COULD know him, or that he MIGHT know something. Had the player claimed to know the king, that's abusive. But in my example, there's no harm, no foul. In Improv, this seems like it'd be OK. Is it OK in Shaman's game? Is it mostly OK, except when it becomes excessive (I know everybody in every town at level 1)? If Shaman's answer is "Absolutely NOT! Your PCs will NEVER know anybody in my game until they've met them." that would be pretty extreme. And that just seems wrong. My limited understanding of Shaman's game is that it has a lot of NPCs with lot of relationships. I don't see what's wrong with priming the pump a little with the PCs having some relationships, too. At least to some junior NPCs. Or to let them invent (and the GM incorporate) some junior NPCs (which can lead to bigger stuff). Clarifying note for Shaman: I'm not fond of my concept of sandboxes. Shaman's "social sandbox" (my term) however fascinates me as it sets up a dynamic framework for NPC/PC interaction leading to story-able non-scripted adventures. In short, I think his idea is cool, so when he has this stance about PC background, I feel like he's hobbling it. So, read my statements as somebody who thinks your sandbox is very clever. [/QUOTE]

Verification