Thursday, November 24, 2005
It gets difficult to discuss RPGs without discussing mechanics. Taking the mechanics out of the equation and going under the assumption that the game will be entirely freeform is perhaps a good way to work on these ideas of collaboration. Figuring out what a group wants out of a game would be the priority. Mechanics could be worked into the ideas once the more important aspects of the narrative structure are determined.
It's difficult to analyze what my players want. And I'm sure I'm way off. However...
From observing, Rich enjoys humour very much in a game. He likes an element of silliness (it's no wonder he's the one who wants to run a Red Dwarf game). He seems to enjoy the character interactions, and he seems perfectly happy constructing ideas in his head about his character and the environment.
Rawl seems to visualize certain elements of his character's actions and even will act out (to an extent) what his character is doing at the table. If his character peers around the corner, Rawl might act out peering around an imaginary corner (I've seen him do it). He also likes character interactions, and he doesn't care whether they're entirely spontaneous or whether they're set up beforehand.
In fact, one of the best sessions I've ever had was shortly before the D&D campaign fell through. We wanted to write Logan's paladin character out, so between sessions, Logan, Rawl and I set up the basics for an argument that would lead to a physical fight between Logan's paladin and Rawl's fighter. It worked like a charm, and I don't think anything was lost by setting elements of it up beforehand.
Rawl also likes a level of humour, but he can get bogged down pretty easily in Simpsons and Family Guy quotes. Maybe he wants to play in a sitcom RPG. ;)
Logan has always been very analytical. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always got the feeling that intense roleplaying of character interactions creeps him out a bit. He likes to get to the meat of a problem and solve it. By nature, he seems to be a problem-solver. Unfortunately, this causes conflicts, as I'm not big on the problem-solving elements of RPGs. They too often rely on player information for characters to solve problems, which detracts from the immersion aspect of roleplaying (for me, that is).
That said, Logan gave me the shock of my gaming life with how well he got into the paladin/fighter fight when we were writing his character out of the D&D game. And I also remember him once crafting one of the coolest Vampire: The Masquerade characters I'd ever seen. His Ravnos (which sadly never got played) was very cool.
As Jay isn't playing with us any longer and Jacquie is unlikely to play with us again, I'll stop the analysis there. I've touched on abstract elements that my regular players like, but I know I'm missing some important bits. What I really need to do is break it down a bit more -- into genre, story element and style preferences.
It's difficult to analyze what my players want. And I'm sure I'm way off. However...
From observing, Rich enjoys humour very much in a game. He likes an element of silliness (it's no wonder he's the one who wants to run a Red Dwarf game). He seems to enjoy the character interactions, and he seems perfectly happy constructing ideas in his head about his character and the environment.
Rawl seems to visualize certain elements of his character's actions and even will act out (to an extent) what his character is doing at the table. If his character peers around the corner, Rawl might act out peering around an imaginary corner (I've seen him do it). He also likes character interactions, and he doesn't care whether they're entirely spontaneous or whether they're set up beforehand.
In fact, one of the best sessions I've ever had was shortly before the D&D campaign fell through. We wanted to write Logan's paladin character out, so between sessions, Logan, Rawl and I set up the basics for an argument that would lead to a physical fight between Logan's paladin and Rawl's fighter. It worked like a charm, and I don't think anything was lost by setting elements of it up beforehand.
Rawl also likes a level of humour, but he can get bogged down pretty easily in Simpsons and Family Guy quotes. Maybe he wants to play in a sitcom RPG. ;)
Logan has always been very analytical. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always got the feeling that intense roleplaying of character interactions creeps him out a bit. He likes to get to the meat of a problem and solve it. By nature, he seems to be a problem-solver. Unfortunately, this causes conflicts, as I'm not big on the problem-solving elements of RPGs. They too often rely on player information for characters to solve problems, which detracts from the immersion aspect of roleplaying (for me, that is).
That said, Logan gave me the shock of my gaming life with how well he got into the paladin/fighter fight when we were writing his character out of the D&D game. And I also remember him once crafting one of the coolest Vampire: The Masquerade characters I'd ever seen. His Ravnos (which sadly never got played) was very cool.
As Jay isn't playing with us any longer and Jacquie is unlikely to play with us again, I'll stop the analysis there. I've touched on abstract elements that my regular players like, but I know I'm missing some important bits. What I really need to do is break it down a bit more -- into genre, story element and style preferences.
// posted by Chris @ 1:25 PM 
Number of visitors since Jan. 7, 2004:
