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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 9293204" data-attributes="member: 20323">Absolutely, great points. You have a lot here, so I've got to respond in segments.I think it's important to explicitly point out - as obvious as it is - that "if everybody else is on board" is neither a guaranteed truth, nor is it clear to all GMs & players how to achieve that consensus. When I mentor new GMs, the "how do I deal with a loud proactive player" is a point I see come up fairly regularly (they normally don't know how to phrase it that way, but that's what it boils down to).So I guess the weight of your "IF" probably boils down to personal experiences.To be fair, I would say the "Extended Scouting Scene" is a rules & procedures (or lack thereof) problem primarily. The player skill at performance is secondary and caused or at least exacerbated by that primary problem. So I developed house rules for "Scouting Scenes" that mitigate the "Decker Problem", which I employ in addition to the GM/player experience bit.While I believe those are phenomenal goals and 100% support them – I've noticed they're quite difficult for even experienced players to adhere to in the heat of the game when the Duke gets feisty and retorts with something inflammatory for that one PC. The "identification with character" mode of play isn't always so easy, at least from my observation, to quickly pivot to "what's good for the group/game" mode of play. My point is – no matter how many high-falutin' principles we have, this issue come ups at the table.While we're on the same page that some sort of mechanics/procedures would be beneficial, my concern isn't the reward mechanism itself. "You get Inspiration" is easy design. Done. The deeper issue is the HOW – "play to your flaw" says nothing about a subtle form of disruption that's easy for a new GM (or a tired experienced GM) to miss.One players sparking that conflict with an authority figure, despite ongoing efforts by other players to negotiate, is the example I've seen the most across different groups. It's easy to see after the fact, but that impulse of instigator players to instigate & for GMs to reply right away – it's a really, really strong impulse.I think relying on a social contract principle is... while it's good in principle, it just doesn't reflect the reality that this issue flies under the radar so easily, that a group doesn't realize what happened until it's after the fact post-session.Yeah, you get it. That's spot on.One of the things I do with many combats now is ask the group "what's your goal here?" And I give them a 1 minute huddle. I don't think this applies 1:1 or addresses the mechanical/codification issue behind a degree of social interaction mechanics, but it might provide a procedural approach...depending on how detailed the scene is and how much that goal becomes a moving target.For Design Principles for Social Mechanics, I think collaborative play - like you've outlined - is a good one.A couple others that I follow and which might be useful: Resolution of complex/extended scenes with gradient of outcomes.Prompts/Questions for GM to keep scene moving and present new challenges.</blockquote>

Verification