Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7352602" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, I'm a 80% GM type of guy myself, though I have found I can play in MOST games and have fun. I just don't set some crazy high expectations from a game with people I don't know well and maybe play a different sort of game than I would ideally prefer. Still, most games are fun. Being in character is good, OTOH I think its fine to step back and assume a different point of view every now and then. A LOT of 'player facing' stuff CAN be done in character though, so its not like the players in my game are forced OOC a whole lot (@Pemerton noted this as well, but it can depend on the amount of authoring the players do, and when).That seems pretty general. It could describe MOST RPGs. I mean, there are some tightly focused ones where exploration is perhaps only in service to an end, or secondary in consideration (I'm thinking of Gangster!, Paranoia, stuff like that), but other than that I think 95% of all RPG play would qualify, wouldn't it? I'm not entirely convinced about the vision part requiring ONE PERSON to have that vision. Like I said, my group (there were 3 players, 2 of whom are long term players of mine and one was a guy who was less experienced but pretty savvy and had no trouble catching on) did this 'Arthurian Knights' thing. It was VERY tightly themed, and if some element was a little outside the typical milieu then we discussed it or adjusted it as needed. The story which resulted was perhaps a bit more cohesive than most of the folk tales, which tend to be pretty episodic, but it sure had a lot of authentic feeling to it. It was fun (though the genre is a bit limited for really long term play).My problem with these black boxes is they so often go wrong. As I said about 'game causality' its hard to know what really all the options are. I think if you play to a very strong genre (say super heroes or something like that) and really don't leave the reservation, and keep the 'puzzle' relatively straightforward, then its feasible. I just think puzzle games are pretty niche. Also it may well be possible to do them with player input! I mean, elements of many of my games have involved hidden knowledge of a type, like "exactly who killed the Mayor? Was it the Alderman, the Baron, the Priest, or the Cleaning Lady?" Now, its possible in some systems that a player could 'solve' that by authorship or even success in a check, but its easy enough to establish a convention against that if you want. I'm not sure why 'crap happens' is particularly endemic to player-led games. I'd say those are usually pretty tightly focused simply due to the fact that the object is to drive towards action which resolves conflicts that matter to the players. Sandbox games, IME, are much more prone to the sort of weird side-tracking where some trivial bit of description gets latched onto by the players and assumes some much greater importance than was intended. That is OK in a lot of cases, but it can really bollix up a game where there's a mystery to solve or something.Anyway, I think its an area that still could be explored in more detail. I'm especially interested in what sorts of techniques could be employed in a game with significant player input to produce a real sense of mystery that holds up. I think it can be done, and I think its happened, maybe by accident, in some of our games, but I'm not sure I have a definite technique to share to accomplish it.</blockquote>

Verification