What we Learned, part 1

[subplotkudzu]

OK, now that everyone is up to speed with what happened in the game, I wanted to briefly discuss some things I’m taking away from it in the future.

 

First, I think I clearly need to establish a strong sense of “Table Rules” for the game group – something that I have been able to avoid until now. Avoid is really the wrong term, because it makes it sound like establishing clear table rules is a bad thing.

 

 

(For those of you who don’t follow, Table Rules are the generally unspoken assumptions that everyone is playing the same style of game. Comparing this to sports, table rules are the same things that differentiate after work pick up games of basketball from an actual league from playing for $5 a point against all comers – everyone is playing basketball, and everyone might be contributing in different ways, but the competitiveness, enforced cooperation and acceptable behaviors will be very different. Same with gaming: this isn’t about me being a genre fiend and you being a power gamer, it’s about me being comfortable with intra-party conflict and having my PC break away from the GM’s storyline and you being a big-boat, follow the stream sort of player.)

 

My assessment of our table rules are as follows (and please, players, correct me if I’m wrong):

One, the characters should all be designed – and played – to have a reason to work together towards the campaign’s objectives.

Two, the campaign’s objectives will be primarily driven by the prospectus entry, though emergent objectives are possible in play.

Three, weak to moderate inter-character conflict is acceptable if long term it does not work against Point One. In other words, we had no issues with Hoa the veteran cop hating the vigilante Night Raven’s involvement because it never seriously hindered the campaign objectives.

Four, more significant inter-character conflict is also acceptable if it is resolved in a genre appropriate method within a 1-3 sessions. This will rarely lead to an emergent objective for the campaign, but it is possible based on the nature of the campaign objective. For example, if in a western the Cowboy and Gunslinger are both vying for the love of the Saloonkeeper’s daughter it is entirely in genre for the two of them to resolve this conflict with a saloon brawl. After the saloon brawl the conflict is over – either the two men become friends or at worst drop to the moderate in-character conflict.

Five, harsh inter-character conflict, of the sort where resolution removes one or more of the characters from the campaign, is strongly discouraged, allowed only for genre reasons and must be resolved within one or at most two sessions. It can/should only occur when the players and GM have discussed the situation OOC beforehand and agreed on the likely possible outcome of a character being removed from play. The characters’ players must be comfortable, and if not desirous of the outcome.

Six, we don’t like spotlight hogs. We love people who drag other player characters into their spotlight.  

Seven, occasionally digressions on OOC topics are OK, depending on the tone of the game. It’s cool when we’re all hanging out in a comedic moment; it’s not cool when we’re in a tense or scary moment.

 

Comments

[kriz1818.livejournal.com]

Sounds about right to me. I view RPGs as a kind of cooperative storytelling - and stories need a substantial degree of narrative cohesion. Not that every detail or episode has to march along in lock step, but overall

And personally, I react poorly when my understanding of the overarching narrative gets messed up - whether it's someone else or me who's doing it. Maybe I've just had too many good experiences to have had much practice with things going wrong!