Visualizza post

Questa sezione ti permette di visualizzare tutti i post inviati da questo utente. N.B: puoi vedere solo i post relativi alle aree dove hai l'accesso.


Post - Paul "Italo" Czege

Pagine: 1 [2]
16
Organizzazione delle Convention / Re:torneo "vero" di GDR?
« il: 2011-11-30 22:01:40 »
The Pantheon "Narrative Cage Match" games are scored:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon_%28role-playing_game%29

You score by hitting the genre tropes with your play.

Paul

17
Years ago a designer named Fang Langford put work into what he called a "transitional" RPG design. It was called Scattershot. The concept was that it behaved like a traditional game, but that you set a threshold (called a "hard rate") that tuned the game to generate either more or less narrativism from the margin of success on die rolls. So you could start out with a traditional feel to play, and gradually adjust the "hard rate" for more narrativism. Ron Edwards describes it here.

Paul

18
Gioco Concreto / Re:[Acts of Evil] Non va?
« il: 2011-09-01 08:40:48 »
Moreno,

The license is for the ashcan text. You're right that I playtested a number of rules changes subsequent to the ashcan, and that rules which eliminated Denial and tracking of Agency for NPCs did streamline things and also achieve my design goal of NPCs emerging as protagonists in play, but those rule changes and others are strewn across awkward annotations to my pdf copy of the ashcan and throughout several emails with my playtest group at the time, so there's no real coherent source for them. And they never did solve the problem of players not taking an interest in roleplaying and engaging the settings and situations prepped by the GM. They never did make the game truly fun.

I know I've described some of the changes in online and face-to-face conversations and emails with folks who were playtesting the ashcan, and I don't have a problem if insights from those conversations make their way into someone's version of the game, but I rather think they're marginal to someone solving the game's problems and completing it. I think that solving the game's problems and completing it is going to require some pretty heavy reconstruction of its core that will surely invalidate my own post-ashcan rules changes.

Paul

19
Gioco Concreto / Re:[Acts of Evil] Non va?
« il: 2011-08-31 12:23:08 »
Hi,

Through playtesting after publishing the ashcan I did ultimately evolve the mechanics of Acts of Evil to solve my goal of the NPCs emerging as protagonists. But I was never able to achieve my goal of players immersing themselves in the situations the GM preps for the terrenes. And as a result the activity of play just wasn't very much fun for the GM, or for the players.

Acts of Evil is about player characters pursuing personal occult godhood across time and space. You advance your character stats through conflicts that use equations like My Life with Master. When you hit a certain stat level you can fight an occult god. If you win, you replace him. And then you narrate the destructions of the other player characters at the hands of your exalted minions and you describe how you remake human history in your own image.

In playtesting it became clear that being able to create your own occult godhood like that is a pretty compelling reward. Ultimately it was so compelling that players did very little roleplaying. I wanted the game to be about the characters getting involved in surreal occult activities across time and space. Think of the Hellboy comics. But what happened in playtesting was that players would bomb into some situation and aggressively pursue the specific type of conflict with an NPC that would give them the next type of stat increase they needed, with just the minimal roleplaying necessary to trigger the die roll, and demonstrating no interest in the situation that the GM had prepped. The game became entirely about flogging your way through the stat increases.

So, despite that the players would all agree that the most interesting characters weren't the ones that overtly flogged their way from equation to equation down the path of advancement, that the most interesting player characters were the ones who would inhabit a curiosity about the NPCs and the occult activities the GM had prepped, that the most interesting player characters weren't the ones crudely portrayed as wholly evil just to trigger stat rolls, but the ones whose evilness emerged from the expression of curiosity about NPCs and situations and personal self-absorption, the players couldn't help themselves. They did this anyway.

And despite talking about the problem with a lot of other designers I respect, I never managed to solve it. Ron Edwards has asserted that "gamism trumps narrativism". What he means is that if you have some players interested in playing competitively, and the game supports it, that their competitive play will make narrativist play impossible. So I think Ron didn't believe I'd ever solve the problem with Acts of Evil. Luke Crane suggested that possibly the advancement path was just "too bald". I think Luke believed that after playing the game just a little bit that the strategy for advancing yourself became obvious, and that an obvious complex pattern is a distraction to the human brain. Our brains are pattern recognition machines. Once they recognized the patterns in the game, the players couldn't not focus on them.

Bacchanal, however, has a competitive element, and I think the competitive element makes the game more intense. I think the game doesn't trigger Luke's "too bald" pitfall, because although the strategy for winning is clear, the dice rolls are uncertain enough that it's not possible for your brain to become absorbed within the pattern for pursuing it. So I think that competitive elements can be a part of narrative games. But making it work is definitely a challenge. You have to avoid having players with different agendas, or the narrative agenda will be trumped by the competition. And you have to avoid having "too bald" of a complex competition, or perhaps also too simple of a competition, or the creative activity of the game will be boring.

Matteo, I have given owners of the ashcan a license to finish and publish the game. If you solve the problem and finish the game, I will license the English language translation rights from you :)

Paul

20
Hello,

As the Narrattiva translation of My Life with Master nears release, I'd like to offer a bit of advice to Italian roleplayers, from my own experience, on having an enjoyable time with the game. When I designed My Life with Master my play style was characterized by fluid scenes involving multiple player characters, a natural enjoyment of roleplay and dialogue without any particular hurry to use the resolution mechanics, and no particular concern for equitible apportionment of screen time. The game was meant to be played this way.

To my great frustration, my play style has more recently become characterized by formalized stakes-setting, abrupt usage of resolution mechanics, and narration at the expense of roleplay. And I see lots of folks playing My Life with Master this way.

Perhaps once indie games started experimenting with turn-based play it was a slippery slope from using a game's resolution mechanics when called for by roleplaying to using the game's structure and mechanics to workshop a narrative; I'm not sure. But my advice to you is to resist trending to this when you play My Life with Master.

As gamemaster, don't frame scenes directly to an obvious conflict very often. Enjoy describing the location and the situation. Enjoy playing and characterizing the Master. Enjoy playing and characterizing the NPCs. Create scenes with more than one NPC in them (more than just the Master, more than just the Connection) when you can. It makes scenes more substantial. As player, enjoy inhabiting your minion. Enjoy developing him or her through play. Give yourselves some time to experience the scene and the characters before you bring things to a conflict. And don't negotiate conflict outcomes before you roll. Simply establish what the minion is trying to do before you roll, and then in keeping with the result of the roll, collaborate and roleplay an outcome.

If your play style is already changed to formalized workshopping, and narration trading, well, you'll have to wait for me to finish Acts of Evil. I'm designing it to train me back from the negotiated workshopping.

Sincerely,

Paul Czege

Pagine: 1 [2]