Immersion, Stance, and Playstyle Discussion

[fusangite]

Not to derail the thread, but this is very reminiscent of something I tried to post at the WotC boards, though far more concise. It was basically a different approach to presenting and designing settings, something a bit more abstract than the top-down or bottom-up approach. If you'd like to know more about it, I'd be glad to either start a new thread or email you what I had in mind.

Why not just post it to the setting design thread we were posting to a couple of days ago?

 

[Afrodyte]

Why not just post it to the setting design thread we were posting to a couple of days ago?

I would if I could find it. I'll probably just start a new thread when I have the energy to get all that information together.

 

[fusangite]

I would if I could find it. I'll probably just start a new thread when I have the energy to get all that information together.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=140923

 

[barsoomcore]

Anything can be a plot hook.

Irrelevant to the point I was making. True enough, but irrelevant.

I am trying to point out that when fusangite says, "It's important that players understand things about the nature of the world they're playing in," the response, "Yeah, they should invent family members to act as plot hooks," is missing the point.

The point is that a particular setting may be designed to operate within certain behavioural patterns. A game may be intended to develop stories of a particular genre or style. When players and DMs cannot reach some mutual common ground on what sort of behaviour is appropriate for characters, or what sort of story is being generated (or "excreted") by the game, frustration is a likely outcome of the gaming session.

So the question is how do DMs and players communicate their intentions vis-a-vis game and setting style, and how do the Stances developed by Sweeney Todd allow (or hinder) that sort of communication?

As opposed to "What are some methods of generating plot hooks?" That's a question for a different thread.

 

[mythusmage]

Irrelevant to the point I was making. True enough, but irrelevant.

I am trying to point out that when fusangite says, "It's important that players understand things about the nature of the world they're playing in," the response, "Yeah, they should invent family members to act as plot hooks," is missing the point.

The point is that a particular setting may be designed to operate within certain behavioural patterns. A game may be intended to develop stories of a particular genre or style. When players and DMs cannot reach some mutual common ground on what sort of behaviour is appropriate for characters, or what sort of story is being generated (or "excreted") by the game, frustration is a likely outcome of the gaming session.

So the question is how do DMs and players communicate their intentions vis-a-vis game and setting style, and how do the Stances developed by Sweeney Todd allow (or hinder) that sort of communication?

As opposed to "What are some methods of generating plot hooks?" That's a question for a different thread.

Do it through the NPCs. Use the opposition, supporting cast, and extras to illustrate your intentions. For example, as the party's going off for their first adventure have them run across a society matron biding farewell to her faithful goblin servant at the end of his year and a day of service. Later when the party fighter hears the goblin he's soundly beating offer faithful service for a year and a day he'll have some idea of what's going on.

Or, if he's being soundly beat the party fighter could offer a year and a day of faithful service to the goblin whomping on him. Which would change the adventure and could lead to further adventures. Think of it as a plot complication.

Goblin Chief: You want the Scroll of Tradition, right? Tell you what ... your fighter's already agreed to serve a year and a day. Your wizard makes the same agreement you can have the scroll. Their service is adequate they get released from their oaths at the end of their term. Their service is better, they get rewarded.

Think of what having a band of goblin watchers/helpers would do for most beginning parties.

 

[fusangite]

Do it through the NPCs...

You know, mythusmage, I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that although we're often in the same thread, we're never really having the same conversation.

 

[mythusmage]

You know, mythusmage, I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that although we're often in the same thread, we're never really having the same conversation.

Use NPC behavior to illustrate cultural norms and how people are expected to behave. In addition, one could use the NPCs to point out what the culture considers important. Traditions, history, legends and myths, that sort of thing.

Culture is not the art in a museum, culture is the people who produced that art, built the museum, provide the transportation that brought the art to the museum and bring the visitors to view the art, produce the electricity used to provide light the art can be viewed by, so on and so forth. Without people there is no culture. Who better to teach strangers about the culture?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

NPC behaviour is not always adequate to illustrate culture when it's offered in a vacuum.

 

[shilsen]

NPC behaviour is not always adequate to illustrate culture when it's offered in a vacuum.

I agree. That's why as a player I like to get as much information out-of-game from the DM about the culture my PC comes from and others that the PC is aware of, and in-game I will often ask the DM out-of-character how a certain situation, object, concept, etc. may be viewed in the specific cultural context(s).

 

[Aaron L]

I agree. That's why as a player I like to get as much information out-of-game from the DM about the culture my PC comes from and others that the PC is aware of, and in-game I will often ask the DM out-of-character how a certain situation, object, concept, etc. may be viewed in the specific cultural context(s).

Me too. Maybe I'm not undertsanding the terminology here, I assumed "acting" stance was looking at the world and trying to have your character act appropriately as far as he would understand the situation, with occiasonal (as appropriate to the mood of the group and the situation of the characters) speaking as if you were your character, having conversations in character and such. I didnt mean getting into character and not breaking it the entire session and playing out every single transaction at the local general store buying rations and rope.

For example, going shopping is usually telling the DM "I need to buy some things, Im looking for a merchant" and the DM saying "OK, PHB Prices, it takes an hour." But when my bladesinger founght a duel with the Sembian nobleman rapier master who was an archenemy of ours for several months, the 1st person "in character" speech immediately engaged and lasted for several hours as we fought. ("I'm 170 years old. I've borne a sword for 120. How old are you again? Oh, 35, was it?", "Didn't your mother ever teach you to fear elves?")


That being said, I certainly do enjoy "authoring" to an extent, and if I can suggest interesting plot points to the DM to flesh out my character I sure will, but my DM and I are usually in fairly constant discourse of the direction of our games and we tend to work out teh direction of teh game together for teh rest of teh group, but in our specific circle one of the main prides of the DM is coming up with interesting storylines and events to entertain and impress the other players and seeing how the players interact with them, and then analyze the outcome of game sessions and plot out what would be cool to happen next (informally, in friendly "BS" sessions), but then again everyone in our group is a DM for thier own games that the rest of us play in as well.

But while playing, I am firmly "acting" out the role of my character, responding to what happens around him as if I was him, and trying to play out what he would do, limited by his knowledge of the world and his personality.