Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 5436371" data-attributes="member: 99">I think it's been a general trend to label the architecture of games that Piratecat (and a lot of others, myself included) runs as &quot;narrow-wide-narrow&quot;.Basically you design an opening scene that presents the central problem that the PC's are trying to overcome.&nbsp; It may already suggest a specific destination (the endgame that will also be narrow).Then the game opens up a bit and the general question posed to the PC's is, &quot;So what are you going to do now?&quot;&nbsp; If there is only one possible answer then the middle of the game isn't really &quot;wide&quot; (though it still might be fun).&nbsp; This is the part where I gotta be most on my toes as a GM so that I can make sure that, whatever it is that they decide, I can tie it in with the exciting conclusion of the game.&nbsp; I also note that this is typically my favorite part of the game because I really enjoy seeing how different groups of players tackle the same scenario.Then the game narrows back to your big, exciting finish where the PC's try to resolve whatever the central problem of the game is.&nbsp; This is often a big, set-piece battle.&nbsp; If possible then try to have whatever they did in the middle part of the game have some bearing on things at the end.&nbsp; It makes the players feel like their decisions mattered.The &quot;narrow-wide-narrow&quot; formula is a formula, with some of the limitations that suggests.&nbsp; But it is astonishing how many plots can fit well within it.&nbsp; It is also a great way to judge your time management for the session.&nbsp; In (very) general terms, I tend to allot about an hour for the opening scene, two hours for the &quot;wide&quot; part in the middle and about an hour for the endgame.&nbsp; This varies based on the general nature of the plot as well as the system (some handle combats faster than others).One final technique that I'll mention that I've become fond of using is the &quot;in media res&quot; start.&nbsp; I frequently run systems that some of the players at the table have never played before and I want to showcase some of the combat mechanics right away so that they will have a feel for them in later scenes.&nbsp; But I don't want the game to get bogged down at the start with a long combat that might take a lot of time to resolve and distract too much from the other, more story oriented, parts of the game, system or setting that I'm trying to showcase.The answer is to simply have them part way through the battle at the start of the game.&nbsp; Let them get a few swings in on some bad guys who are perhaps already wounded or who are outnumbered by the PC's who have been doing well.&nbsp; I sort of think of this as the scene that happens at the start of a lot of James Bond movies before the credits.&nbsp; He finishes up the last mission before he's brought in to talk with M about what the rest of the movie is all about.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rel, post: 5436371, member: 99"] I think it's been a general trend to label the architecture of games that Piratecat (and a lot of others, myself included) runs as "narrow-wide-narrow". Basically you design an opening scene that presents the central problem that the PC's are trying to overcome. It may already suggest a specific destination (the endgame that will also be narrow). Then the game opens up a bit and the general question posed to the PC's is, "So what are you going to do now?" If there is only one possible answer then the middle of the game isn't really "wide" (though it still might be fun). This is the part where I gotta be most on my toes as a GM so that I can make sure that, whatever it is that they decide, I can tie it in with the exciting conclusion of the game. I also note that this is typically my favorite part of the game because I really enjoy seeing how different groups of players tackle the same scenario. Then the game narrows back to your big, exciting finish where the PC's try to resolve whatever the central problem of the game is. This is often a big, set-piece battle. If possible then try to have whatever they did in the middle part of the game have some bearing on things at the end. It makes the players feel like their decisions mattered. The "narrow-wide-narrow" formula is a formula, with some of the limitations that suggests. But it is astonishing how many plots can fit well within it. It is also a great way to judge your time management for the session. In (very) general terms, I tend to allot about an hour for the opening scene, two hours for the "wide" part in the middle and about an hour for the endgame. This varies based on the general nature of the plot as well as the system (some handle combats faster than others). One final technique that I'll mention that I've become fond of using is the "in media res" start. I frequently run systems that some of the players at the table have never played before and I want to showcase some of the combat mechanics right away so that they will have a feel for them in later scenes. But I don't want the game to get bogged down at the start with a long combat that might take a lot of time to resolve and distract too much from the other, more story oriented, parts of the game, system or setting that I'm trying to showcase. The answer is to simply have them part way through the battle at the start of the game. Let them get a few swings in on some bad guys who are perhaps already wounded or who are outnumbered by the PC's who have been doing well. I sort of think of this as the scene that happens at the start of a lot of James Bond movies before the credits. He finishes up the last mission before he's brought in to talk with M about what the rest of the movie is all about. [/QUOTE]

Verification