It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Posted By: JoelI just blogged aboutwhy Tim Burton's "9" sucks and how that inspired me.
Posted By: GrahamJudd, I must admit, I'm rather mystified by how passionate everyone is about this.Does collaboration make art better or worse? Sometimes one, sometimes the other. Bringing words like "integrity" and "authenticity" just muddy the waters. I don't lose my integrity because I collaborate.Similarly, should you think about story during play? Sometimes, sometimes not. It's no crime to think "Maybe I'll kill him, that'll make the story more interesting" or "Maybe I'll kill him, that'll make things interesting later". But it's bad to think "I want to kill him, but I can't, because it'll ruin the story".I just don't get the passion, because both questions seem like false dichotomies.Graham
Posted By: GrahamAnd, when I say I don't understand the passion, I mean: what's the thing you're arguing against, here? Do people often worry about the story, to the detriment of play? I haven't seen that happen, but perhaps it does. Have you seen some bad way of playing that you're trying to correct?
Episode 27: Player StanceThe purpose of this episode is to point out some of the different stances players use in the portrayal of their characters. I think my ‘default’ stance is author stance, but I enjoy shading to actor stance and director stance, too. I may drift into director stance too much–being used to running games, I sometimes devote more effort to thinking about the overall story and connections rather than concentrating on playing my character. I’m going to be paying more attention to stance in the future, particularly my own, in an effort to see if there is a link between a particular stance and a particularly enjoyable gaming experience. The excerpts in this episode are from Giants, Primetime Adventures, and Dungeons & Dragons. Some of you will recognize the D&D game from Episode 9–please indulge me! Mel
Posted By: JuddIn my experience, some folks freeze up. They, for example, brainstorm with their friends this amazing PTA pitch and then suddenly, the pressure is not just on the GM, the pressure's on them.Instead of looking at their character sheet, reacting honestly to what is happening in the fiction at the table and engaging with the mechanics, they are worried about living up to this setting their friends and them have helped create. I think a constipation can set in, a kind of deer-in-the-headlights effect where some ephemeral idea of story needs to be preserved.Not worrying about the story =/= not giving a shit at all what happens.Not worrying about the story = playing the game and letting the story happen, rather than living in fear of harming this idea.Does that make anymore sense?
Posted By: JoelBut if it is indeed the birth pangs of a complete creative collapse in the “entertainment” industry, then I must conclude that if we want to have stories with integrity, we must make them ourselves. This is why roleplaying and storyjamming are more than mere diversions for me.
Posted By: JuddThe goal is a night of people making meaningful choices at the table. Story is a by-product, like exhaust coming out of a car.
Posted By: GrahamIt reminds me of an improvisation tenet, which is "Don't plan ahead".
Posted By: Jason MorningstarI think the guys I play with are happy to break out in a meta discussion, maybe caution someone not to kill a guy who would be way more interesting later as an adversary, that sort of thing.