Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fniff]

I know one or two people on this forum (Who I shall not name) who have a tendency to do that sort of thing. Worst thing, it's usually not that creative: just killing everyone in sight with no style. Generally, I think bringing down the hammer on them in-game is better then settling it OOC, though I haven't done this myself, which I should have.

[Rolepgeek]

I'm wondering where I should go with First Contact. I've got a basic idea laid out, but I'm wondering if I should have planned more as to the game itself; no map of the ship yet, only the most general idea of who the enemies are, etc. Not sure how to decently craft a plot, either. Whenever I do, I end up comparing my ideas to the books I read, and they don't hold up. There's rarely the intricacies and overall connected-togetherness.

[Harry Baldman]

It could be, for example, a novice RPer joining such a game and derailing the others' fun with selfishness/godmodding or just poor roleplaying, which I've experienced more than once. I've probably been such a person in the past. They could shoot up the plot-important NPC because they're not all that invested and just want to have their fun, no matter what the others think. It's not easy for a GM to manage.

Yeah, I can certainly see how that could possibly happen, and I will concede that point. In addition, they could also be an aspiring loonie, except forgetting the part that they have to be funny rather than highly annoying, completely random and disruptive.

I know one or two people on this forum (Who I shall not name) who have a tendency to do that sort of thing. Worst thing, it's usually not that creative: just killing everyone in sight with no style. Generally, I think bringing down the hammer on them in-game is better then settling it OOC, though I haven't done this myself, which I should have.

Also, yeah. It's really unpleasant if somebody derails your plot without style. With enough style brought to being disruptive (as in, your disruptions actually becoming entertaining rather than merely awful), it stops being an issue, really, because it becomes fun to watch and participate in, engaging players in what they do. And with engaged players comes a good game. Also, boring characters don't help, certainly. Especially boring and omnicidal ones.

I'm wondering where I should go with First Contact. I've got a basic idea laid out, but I'm wondering if I should have planned more as to the game itself; no map of the ship yet, only the most general idea of who the enemies are, etc. Not sure how to decently craft a plot, either. Whenever I do, I end up comparing my ideas to the books I read, and they don't hold up. There's rarely the intricacies and overall connected-togetherness.

You shouldn't worry if you haven't got much planned out. At first, just throw stuff you think is rather interesting toward the players. If your game holds up, work on a deeper plot on the sidelines, weaving the random stuff you came up with into a single framework.

And never compare the plot of a game to the plot of a book. They, while compatible, certainly aren't the same thing and people certainly don't look for the exact same things in both. Focus on the gameplay at first. Make things up as you go. It's fun. And liberating.

[Digital Hellhound]

Game plots are definitely not book plots (or movie plots etc.). Flexibility is key. You can't be sure what your players are going to do and even in a game where they don't have much freedom (say, a suggestion game with a),b),c) action choices), they need to be able to interact. That isn't to say that your game plot can't be lovingly crafted/decent - just allow it to breathe and change during play.

If you want to focus on an involving story, make sure you find the players for that. Talkin' hardcore roleplayers here. But again, railroading is death.

[Solifuge]

This doesn't sound like it'd bring too much GM satisfaction or player satisfaction for that one player who was enjoying the plot and doesn't like the others breaking it. It's good advice, but not really universal to every type of game.

(In other words, that sounds kinda... imperfect for me both as a GM and a player. Mainly because words like 'shatter' so I can only imagine a bunch of vandals laying waste to a centuries-old precious mural (the lovingly-crafted plot) or somesuch. Kerping your plot flexible and un-railroady is key in any game, naturally.)

Well, if there's just one player who was enjoying the plot, it's going to be pretty difficult for them to enjoy it if the rest don't share in the joy, know what I mean? And lovingly crafting a plot for a game implies several things. For one, it means that you're planning too far ahead. Secondly, it means you're getting too attached to your plot. You shouldn't do that. It just makes it hurt more when somebody ruins it by accident or on purpose.

And laying waste to things (such as a lovingly-crafted plot) is very fun, I must say. Particularly when it's clear you're not supposed to be doing it - subverting expectations and surmounting odds gives the player joy. Particularly when you feel like you're destroying something beautiful, powerful or wonderful, especially if it's done through planning and effort.

Yeah, I don't enjoy any of those things, as a player or a GM. Flexibility of plot is fine, and clever subversion of tropes or expectations is great. However, in saying that everyone likes to troll and "lay waste to" stories for the lulz, I think you're assuming a little too much about the nature of other people. Also, you talk as though the reader/player should be given more narrative control than the writer/GM. Seems in those kind of games, there should be no writer/GM at all, because there's no place for one.

From years of Tabletop experience, ranging from on-the-spot collaborative storytelling games we used to come up with as kids, to the evocative worlds and storylines my friends have built for various campaigns, I've found that a true "Anything Goes" attitude tends to destroy the heart of the narrative, and quickly degrades things into a pile of incoherent silliness that it's hard to get excited about or invested in. It's not even fun to subvert anymore, because there's nothing coherant left to subvert. The story isn't just derailed; it is effectively broken.

You need at least a minimum of structure or limitations on what can and can't be, or you won't have a story or a game or anything. You'll be having a... fictional group conversation. Or something else which I can't find a word for.

[Solifuge]

Please pardon the double-post.

I'm wondering where I should go with First Contact. I've got a basic idea laid out, but I'm wondering if I should have planned more as to the game itself; no map of the ship yet, only the most general idea of who the enemies are, etc. Not sure how to decently craft a plot, either. Whenever I do, I end up comparing my ideas to the books I read, and they don't hold up. There's rarely the intricacies and overall connected-togetherness.

Well, for starters, a strong setting is important. If the players are spending a lot of time in the ship, you should have at least a good idea of several major locations in the ship ahead of time. You can come up with more as the plot demands. As for Plotcraft, it sounds like you should experiment with the art of the Plot Hook. As a GM, you don't need to plan every intricacy out ahead of time; in fact, that's often a bad idea, and leads to railroading! You just need to create characters and motivations, and let events unfold organically, based on the players' actions.

Create a setting. Create a number of NPC Entities, be they religions or empires or cosmic forces or individuals or whatever, and polarize them. Give them resources, personal goals, and plans by which to achieve their goals. Set some of them at odds with one another; give some of them goals that clash. Then lump them into your universe, let your characters know the surface details, and then have them make their characters, and encourage them to have ties with one or more of these NPC factions or entities (they can be friends with these entities, or enemies, or might owe them a favor or be owed a favor, etc). Then, if you drop enough Plot Hooks for the players to get involved in these factions, and swept up in their plans, they'll react, and suddenly you have a plot! The players will let you know where they want the plot to go, and they may surprise or inspire you with an endgame you didn't expect.

If you'd like a nice, simple structure for writing a compelling interactive plot for a game, you could do worse than familiarize yourself with Minimus. You don't have to do things the same way, but it's a great base to adapt a storytelling structure from: Linko

[Harry Baldman]

Yeah, I don't enjoy any of those things, as a player or a GM. Flexibility of plot is fine, and clever subversion of tropes or expectations is great. However, in saying that everyone likes to troll and "lay waste to" stories for the lulz, I think you're assuming a little too much about the nature of other people. Also, you talk as though the reader/player should be given more narrative control than the writer/GM. Seems in those kind of games, there should be no writer/GM at all, because there's no place for one.

From years of Tabletop experience, ranging from on-the-spot collaborative storytelling games we used to come up with as kids, to the evocative worlds and storylines my friends have built for various campaigns, I've found that a true "Anything Goes" attitude tends to destroy the heart of the narrative, and quickly degrades things into a pile of incoherent silliness that it's hard to get excited about or invested in. It's not even fun to subvert anymore, because there's nothing coherant left to subvert. The story isn't just derailed; it is effectively broken.

You need at least a minimum of structure or limitations on what can and can't be, or you won't have a story or a game or anything. You'll be having a... fictional group conversation. Or something else which I can't find a word for.

It's called a minimalist freeform RP, I believe. Or simply a freeform RP that gets really out of hand. Or, if you add a single die, a minimalist RTD. Those usually don't work very well for most audiences, at least not for long.

Also, players should be given control of the narrative. The GM controls and consistently describes the circumstances of the players, places plot hooks and such, adds NPCs and adversaries, but ultimately should not control the narrative itself, merely give it paths of greater and lesser resistance to follow, and allow players to choose whatever path they may wish. That's the essence of a roleplaying game and its difference from a work without audience participation, the author giving up their solitary control of where the story goes and what happens during it. Essentially exactly what you describe in your second post. That, I think, is how plotting should be done, and how players should be approached in a game.

And laying waste to a plot can mean many things, and it isn't always done for the lulz. It can be done out of disinterest, lack of investment, poor RPing, a desire on the players' part to have more control over the narrative and more. But destruction and subversion is fun as long as it doesn't destroy the game itself in most cases. That's why the GM limits the power of the players, provides obstacles in their path to make their end goal a thing that was reached through hardship, whatever it may be. A plot can get destroyed when the GM sets a goal for the player and the player chooses to do something incompatible with this goal for whatever reason. When this goal is but one of many the players may have and the GM has foreseen, there is nothing to really destroy, at least nothing that cannot be easily replaced.

[freeformschooler]

Food for thought statement for the current discussion:

"The GM is not the writer. The GM is the stage."

Can't remember where I first heard it.

[Fniff]

Oh God, in my experience, never run freeform RPs. They really don't work properly. You need rules.

And before you say it, NO. You can never run a freeformer. It doesn't work out. There is no freeformer that ended happily. It always ends in godmoding or abandonment. Even other RPs end.

[Digital Hellhound]

I've been in/run freeform RPs that worked just fine. T'was on another forum where such thibgs generally went better. I wouldn't try one here (mind you, I've gotten pretty great writing done in freeforms on Bay 12, but generally by mostly ignoring the other players).

Ehehe. I've been in freeform.

[Harry Baldman]

Oh God, in my experience, never run freeform RPs. They really don't work properly. You need rules.

And before you say it, NO. You can never run a freeformer. It doesn't work out. There is no freeformer that ended happily. It always ends in godmoding or abandonment. Even other RPs end.

Exactly. If the GM is the stage, and I do believe this is true, then one that runs a freeform minimalist game (and is a complete non-interventionist) is the equivalent of a blank wall. You have to have really good players to make that interesting or lasting in any way. It happens to most minimalist RTD's, and those actually have rules. Well, one rule, really, but still.

[Solifuge]

Food for thought statement for the current discussion:

"The GM is not the writer. The GM is the stage."

Can't remember where I first heard it.

I tend to view the players and GM as writers. The GM is just the editor-in-chief. The stage is in everyone's collective brains.

[Digital Hellhound]

I've reread this old game of mine and realized that hey, it wasn't half bad. Good ideas, there.

Sadly I don't have any notes for it anymore, but from the first post;

Spoiler: The Game (click to show/hide)

The idea of this game is that you're a newborn god or eldritch horror, and need to gather worshippers to gain more power and become the dominant god in the world. The more followers you have, the more Divine Essence you get per turn. Divine Essence is spent on Acts. Your followers have free will, and their Prophets can write entire elements of their religion up from scratch, creating new gods or other Aspects of you, which you can't do anything about.

You're free to act however you want. Olympian sex antics? No problem. Annihillating cities Old Testament style? Sure. Blood sacrifices? Feel free! Peace and harmony? Well, if you insist.

Spoiler: Aspects (click to show/hide)

Depending on your actions, your followers can create different Aspects of you. These are simply parts of you, and any worship they receive goes to your main aspect as well. However, if a minor Aspect grows too popular, it can split off into a whole another free-willed god, and not necessarily a friendly one.

If you defeat another god, with subterfuge or force, you can merge them into just an Aspect of you, and possibly gain its followers in the process.

Spoiler: Belief and Prophets (click to show/hide)

The leader of your worshippers is a Prophet. You can communicate with him/her without having to manifest and augment his lifespan, physique, mind or anything you want. This close connection with you has caused them to draw extraordinary amounts of Essence inside themselves. They can subconsciously use this power to create new beings and sections of your religion with speeches or holy writings. These can be simple Aspects, new gods or enemies, or divine servants.

As long as you're the focus of the religion, these created beings will receive less Divine Essence from worship. If they grow more popular, they can overshadow you and make you a minor god.

Your followers cannot survive without Prophets. If all of them die, your followers lose faith and scatter. The amount of Prophets you can have depends on the size of your followers. New Prophets can be only raised from Fanatical followers.

---

Spoiler: God Application (click to show/hide)

Probably shorter than in most games.
Name: (Go wild! This is pretty self-explanatory)
Gender: (Describing you as 'it' gets old pretty fast, and sex is important if you go the Zeus route.)
Description: (This will be the form in which you usually manifest to your followers. You can change form, but it will cost you Divine Essence.)

So, stuff. I'm just looking for vague improvements, I guess - not entirely sure why I stopped it, so I dunno what to fix. But yeah, wanna give this another go someday.

[Bdthemag]

God-type games don't really need much in terms of mechanics, and your idea really doesn't need improvements due to the simplicity of running them. Just implement a dice-roll for each player's turn, and that should pretty much be all you need.

[Digital Hellhound]

I don't know if I even had dice rolls in the original! It ran mostly on narrativium (like all good things) with arbitarily granted/taken Divine Essence.