rapanui wrote:See, the point I'm trying to make is that the game could become more fun if each player had to set personal goals to be acheived. That way the question of "why are you still adventuring?" doesn't rear it's ugly head. As soon as your character reaches his goal, you've 'won'.
That question needs to smack every single character in the face constantly. Aimless characters suck ass, and there's no reason for them. If you're actually playing a
character then you can find reasons - just like real people do in real life - to continue to pursue a certain activity. Unless, of course, everyone has agreed that the story is over when X goal has been achieved... In which case there's not much else to do but start over.
rapanui wrote:Maj wrote:I love a good story, and this one is a choose-your-own-adventure
I like your reasons, but I have a problem with #1. Don't the agendas of other players sometimes ruin your vision of the story? Doesn't the GM railroad and restrict your imagination?
Being part of a good story is not mutually exclusive with having other independently minded people or a DM. That's almost like saying that choosing a book to read limits your imagination and prevents you from enjoying the story because it's already predetermined what will happen and you don't get a say in it.
Sometimes, the other players are annoying. One of my biggest pet peeves is the player who is at the table but doesn't seem to want to actually be there - so his character just follows everyone else around and does whatever they tell him to. If I wanted a brainless companion in my game, I'd play D&D with my philodendron because it's a lot cheaper to feed and doesn't take up as much space. But that pet peeve is actually caused by a player's
lack of agenda - they're not contributing to the story, thus there's little reason for them to be part of it.
The problem that a lot of games get into is that the players are not willing to create a character who will have independent motivations, but still have a reason for hanging out with a given group of people. Case in point, my latest game:
- Mind-controlling dominatrix who hates all women because her mommy tells her to through a magic mirror, and won't hesitate to attempt to dominate the other characters in the party. This automatically nixed interaction with my character (Her last character was a druid who wouldn't leave her ten square feet of forest - essentially defeating the entire purpose of the game in the character creation stage).
- Cleric who had his soul shoved into the body of a nimblewright. He worships the god of destruction in the world we're playing in, and part of his ethic is forceably converting everyone he meets. This automatically alienates the rest of the group unless we decide we're converting or he becomes less devout.
- "Devil" with a soul who is out to take over the world... But realizes that she's too inexperienced to succeed. Her goal is to become a semi respected heroine and be voted to the top. Makes nice with everybody for the purpose of looking like an angel.
That last one is mine. And I did the best I could to fit into the rest of the party, have personal motivations, yet have a motivation to work well with others. It's probably not perfect, but I made an effort - which is more than the other two players. The game has already fallen apart and we've only gotten to the here's-the-setup stage. It's retarded.
The story is flexible, but it's not unbreakable. Despite having quite a bit of freedom, there are certain parameters that need to be adhered to in order to have an actual game - or else you end up with people sitting at a table at the same time, just doing their own thing.
rapanui wrote:Do we really need dice for the unexpected? Can't other players themselves be a source of unexpected events?
Yes and no. You need something that is the bias-less arbiter, but that doesn't mean that the other players still won't do something that brings the unexpected to the plot. Without some emotionless, uncaring way of determining the outcome of a situation, you'll end up right back at Frank's, "I shot you!" "No, you missed!" dilemma. If that job is left to a person, then you immediately have some players suspecting bias on someone's part and stupid happens all over again.
rapanui wrote:I am positing the possibility that a GM might not be necessary.
How do the players know where they're going if they don't have a map? Who draws the map?
The only solution that I can think of off-hand lies in a card game called
Once Upon a Time. Essentially, the players would draw cards in order to determine what happens next, until they reached a random ending card, where they tie the story off and it's over.
I don't know who many people would be comfortable with that. I think you'd end up with the too many cooks problem again.
rapanui wrote:Precisely! But if you look at the way D&D is designed, it seems like they are expecting most fo your table time to be dedicated to fights! If you took out all the material relevant to combat out of the PHB... you'd have a pretty thin book. I'm questioning the emphasis placed on tactical rules. Are these really necessary? Can't the group as a whole just referee complex situations?
I tend to think of the game in terms of situations. The more detailed the definition of situation is, the greater the complexity of the game, and the longer said situations take to resolve as a whole.
For example, my character was mugged in an alley and shot in the face. She disarmed the guy and waited until the authorities showed up and then turned the creep over to them.
You can describe this event in more detail:
Round 1: A man to the left says, "Drop your bag." Roll Initiative.
Round 2: Upon winning initiative, drop bag, and take a move action to where the guy is standing. With a partial action left, hold out hand and say, "Give me the gun." Roll Bluff/Diplomacy.
Round 3: Guy aims for face (readies an action). Try to get gun away from guy. Roll intimidate.
Round 4.... Blah, blah, blah
...
See what I mean? The smaller and more detailed a "situation" the more of them you have, and the longer it takes to resolve. It doesn't matter if you're in a political plot, a dungeon puzzle, a trap, or combat. The same principle applies universally.
You're right, though, when you say that D&D seems to emphasize the details in combat - it does. If the rule set will not accomodate the desires of the players, then it is left to some authority - be it a counsel, a person, or what - to decide what level of situation the game is going to zoom to, and how it can be evened out as much as possible.