Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6120292" data-attributes="member: 85870">Quick update ----Had a VEEERY interesting thing happen at the end of our last session (Thurs. April 11). During our post-game wrap up, all of the players and I had a semi-serious though open and friendly discussion about the direction of the game, their characters, etc., as it related to their &quot;place in the fiction.&quot;Interestingly, ALL OF THEM agreed that they needed to do some more &quot;in-character&quot; interactions about the events happening in the game. Part of the problem, it seems, is that all of them were playing in a largely meta-game mode, and as such weren't exploring actions from their PC's viewpoint. This was making it hard for all of them to really &quot;know&quot; how to act, because their in-game relationships hadn't been fully defined. As a result, they weren't comfortable playing those relationships out in game. I talked to the player who had requested &quot;moving ahead to the dig site,&quot; and he mentioned, &quot;I'm really just playing this as my character saw it---if there's no other complications relevant enough to get in the way, he'd undoubtedly push, and push HARD for going to the dig site.&quot; Fair enough! Thus, it wasn't that he was trying to &quot;get to the action,&quot; so to speak; if the other characters had presented relevant &quot;points of engagement,&quot; he'd have been all over those too. It's just that as presented in-game to his character, none of the other characters had given him reason to change motivation. Interestingly, I think to a degree, this is relevant to the &quot;Surprising the GM&quot; thread as well. For example, would Hussar have been willing to &quot;skip the desert,&quot; if another character (not player) had a relevant reason not to? Would the in-game compulsion to play out a viable in-game character complication have been more important than skipping to the action?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6120292, member: 85870"] Quick update ---- Had a VEEERY interesting thing happen at the end of our last session (Thurs. April 11). During our post-game wrap up, all of the players and I had a semi-serious though open and friendly discussion about the direction of the game, their characters, etc., as it related to their "place in the fiction." Interestingly, ALL OF THEM agreed that they needed to do some more "in-character" interactions about the events happening in the game. Part of the problem, it seems, is that all of them were playing in a largely meta-game mode, and as such weren't exploring actions from their PC's viewpoint. This was making it hard for all of them to really "know" how to act, because their in-game relationships hadn't been fully defined. As a result, they weren't comfortable playing those relationships out in game. I talked to the player who had requested "moving ahead to the dig site," and he mentioned, "I'm really just playing this as my character saw it---if there's no other complications relevant enough to get in the way, he'd undoubtedly push, and push HARD for going to the dig site." Fair enough! Thus, it wasn't that he was trying to "get to the action," so to speak; if the other characters had presented relevant "points of engagement," he'd have been all over those too. It's just that as presented in-game to his character, none of the other characters had given him reason to change motivation. Interestingly, I think to a degree, this is relevant to the "Surprising the GM" thread as well. For example, would Hussar have been willing to "skip the desert," if another[I] character [/I](not player) had a relevant reason not to? Would the in-game compulsion to play out a viable in-game character complication have been more important than skipping to the action? [/QUOTE]

Verification