Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SweeneyTodd" data-source="post: 2414280" data-attributes="member: 9391">Those are very interesting points. And I think that most games out there now are really lacking in explanations that actually help someone who wants to pick up a book and learn how to play (much less run) a game without someone who's done it before around to help them figure it out. A lot of games have lip service "How to play/How to GM" that assume you know what to do.If you look at Buffy, or Primetime Adventures, the conceptual complexity issue is very different. These are games that are set up to produce games like a series of TV episodes, and they explain to players and GM alike how to do that. Buffy has an existing framework; if you've watched the show, you know the things Heroes and White Hats do, how a session is structured, etc. In PTA, you aren't going to get "off the map" as far as task resolution, because the resolution mechanic is tied to resolving the conflict within a scene, and there are clear rules for how to handle that. Also, both games have a catch-all mechanic (Drama Points or Screen Presence) that everyone can fall back on if they're not sure how to handle a specific case.I think that "back to the dungeon" and "like your favorite TV show" are both helpful constraints that help new players get their footing. They limit scope and keep things focused. That leads me into some thoughts about scenario creation.I think it's interesting that traditional party-of-adventurers RPGs have two primary elements of structure: resolution mechanics, and scenario creation. Scenario creation is a large part of "how we play", and it's not an easy skill to learn in traditional RPGs. You have to weigh challenge fairness vs. vermillisitude vs. pacing and narrative arc. If I want to make a D&D 3.5 dungeon, I need to understand CRs, adjust for the class composition of the party, make sure environmental challenges are surmountable at the party's level and with their skills, etc. Prepackaged adventures help with these problems, but they're definate issues.In Primetime Adventures, there's no benefit at all in using a "module" except as inspiration. Players and GM talk together about the kind of series they'd like to play, make characters (which involves writing down a few traits they're skilled at, like "CIA Operative"), and go. Scenario balance and the narrative arc are tied together -- as challenges come up in a scene, the GM spends his Budget to decide how difficult they are, starting off easier and building to a high difficulty at the climax. Whatever the challenge is, it's resolved using Screen Presence + a relevant trait vs. the Budget spent. That doesn't simulate reality, but it does simulate the TV shows it's based on.What I guess I'm trying to say is that conceptual complexity relates heavily to the mode of play. Getting your head around a D&D style model can be tough for some people -- are we trying to play our characters to "win", or to have them act like they were real people, or to have an interesting "story" happen? What if those goals conflict? We see posts about these kinds of things all the time on this forum, often from long-time players and GMs. Something like "It's going to be kind of like Firefly" still needs group consensus on some points, but it's easy to relate to.Not to push PTA so hard -- it's just the book next to me when I was thinking of examples -- but I think it'd be interesting to explore different conceptual models. I think a good rules-light game can present a clear, limited conceptual model, and contain mechanics that let you resolve play within that model.</blockquote>

Verification