Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6255275" data-attributes="member: 6677017">I've heard it called The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast: the GM writes/tells the story, and players decide their characters' actions. That comes from attempting plot+game.My specific way of addressing it involves having three different modes of play: Story, Exploration, or Game. Role-playing stories and role-playing explorations in my system are explicitly not games.For instance, in my system it is not only allowed, it is actually expected and directed that, in a story, the whole group decides on how (in general) it will end before it ever begins during the setup phase. The playing through the story refers to working out and experiencing the details from the point of a view of a character, and doesn't imply an uncertain outcome of the overall plot. If the story is supposed to be heroic fantasy, you will defeat the villain at the end. If it supposed to be tragic horror, everyone is going to die, go insane, or perhaps there is going to be one lone survivor to tell the sad tale.The joy comes from putting yourself in a character's shoes and feeling the thrill of the moment, deciding on how the details work out.Systems for both the players and the GM (kinda--the role is actually split into two) to make sure the overall plot and the character defining elements come to the desired resolution regardless of set-backs and detours, is fully integrated (rather than a band aid solution).(In an exploration you have no plot, so it is entirely open-ended.)That's not what I'm going for, and I'd be happy for any advice as to how to make sure it doesn't end up that way.The goal here is that the players will be actively immersed and watching the action with almost as much interest when it involves the other characters as when it involves their own. This is encouraged in two ways: First, it is designed to take no longer than necessary, and there are actually 3 speeds of task resolution depending on what the goals of the scene are. Second, in the slowest speed every detail of description from the player can potentially influence the result of a task, and every point of description on the part of the GM can provide openings for other players. Part of the descriptive elements are resolved after the random components are determined.GM: The barbarian swings his giant axe in an overhead strike towards you...Player: I bring my sword up to parry...(Dice are rolled)GM: You can tell that your parry won't make it in time, and and the dangerously sharp axe is coming straight towards you...Player: As I bring the sword up to my right, I lead with the hilt up and the blade slanted diagonally to deflect. I collapse my left knee and push off the ground hard with my right leg, attempting to drop low enough to give my blade time to get between my head and his axe...GM: You throw yourself to your left, his axe blade narrowly missing your head and hands and scraping down the blade of your sword...You are now laying on the ground a few feat away in a very vulnerable position...In contrast to most systems I've seen, the degree by which the descriptive elements can alter the outcome is also much higher--in fact it has as much weight as the dice themselves. That's the slower version. In the medium version you aren't going to get that detailed, because it's not that sort of scene, and in the faster version you don't roll at all.  Exactly. When you are experiencing your role in a story, it is a different experience than playing a game, or than exploring a scenario. Each needs it's own set of assumptions and systems for supporting it.While it might sound like I'm merely defending my system, I actually find great value in these sorts of things that you are pointing out. I would appreciate any sorts of additional examples and pitfalls you can point out. I plan to do my best to make it work, and if I can't, I'll know it wasn't because I was missing some vital idea that I was never exposed to.Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification