Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7389488" data-attributes="member: 82106">Some systems have definite answers to this, or it may depend. So, for instance, if 2 players contradict one another, it could be that they are only stating possible consequences of actions they wish to resolve. Usually someone will have to decide who goes first, and once the action is established in fiction then the other player will have to respect it. They could still fail to cooperate in terms of getting in each other's way. There's no known formula for a rule that effectively says &quot;players have to cooperate&quot; in ANY RPG.I would suggest that A) most players DO become invested in the story when given a chance, though poor play or an exceedingly uninterested player might not. I would venture that those aren't system problems per-se.B) Episodic play can work. It has some advantages and disadvantages. One advantage might be facilitating more varied goals. A game like that might play out like 'Star Trek' where there's an overall theme and character relationships, but each episode challenges specific characters and has a specific central theme. A question them becomes who regulates the setting of these themes and the plot? I would devise an RPG specifically for this purpose, though it would be easy enough to do so based on existing games, like BW or Cortex (or FATE, FUDGE, PACE, etc.). C) GMs 'step in' in terms of framing scenes. So they have a lot of thematic input into the game. Their job is primarily to translate what the game is about into a concrete description of situations and consequences of actions which speak to the characters and help define them. The players then answer these descriptions as their characters, further defining them. Should a GM 'step in' to resolve some sort of issue between players? I think its a table thing, it could as easily be another player.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7389488, member: 82106"] Some systems have definite answers to this, or it may depend. So, for instance, if 2 players contradict one another, it could be that they are only stating possible consequences of actions they wish to resolve. Usually someone will have to decide who goes first, and once the action is established in fiction then the other player will have to respect it. They could still fail to cooperate in terms of getting in each other's way. There's no known formula for a rule that effectively says "players have to cooperate" in ANY RPG. I would suggest that A) most players DO become invested in the story when given a chance, though poor play or an exceedingly uninterested player might not. I would venture that those aren't system problems per-se. B) Episodic play can work. It has some advantages and disadvantages. One advantage might be facilitating more varied goals. A game like that might play out like 'Star Trek' where there's an overall theme and character relationships, but each episode challenges specific characters and has a specific central theme. A question them becomes who regulates the setting of these themes and the plot? I would devise an RPG specifically for this purpose, though it would be easy enough to do so based on existing games, like BW or Cortex (or FATE, FUDGE, PACE, etc.). C) GMs 'step in' in terms of framing scenes. So they have a lot of thematic input into the game. Their job is primarily to translate what the game is about into a concrete description of situations and consequences of actions which speak to the characters and help define them. The players then answer these descriptions as their characters, further defining them. Should a GM 'step in' to resolve some sort of issue between players? I think its a table thing, it could as easily be another player. [/QUOTE]

Verification