anyway.

Hi Vincent-

Do you see that as an issue of trying to translate a preexisting campaign world/setting/etc and violating what the group has come to expect as "genre expectations" for the game, or do you see it as an issue of what the group has come to expect as "play with these people here"?

Hey, whoa! I seem to remember wanting a lot to continue our little Dogs game, but there being a certain amount of reluctance on the part of the GM because he was fed up with the game at the time. And there's two other Dogs games that would be great to play again, but one member flaked 'cause he got a girlfriend. So, YMMV.

My memory of said Dogs games is just what Meg said. We were all pro-it, save one tired game designer who wanted to use someone else's rules for a while.

I think our PTA game is going so strongly because of the strength of the story and how much the players like each other. The mechanics facilitate that.

I'd like to see mechanics in PTA that offer more than two variables (who succeeds and who narrates) though. I'd like to see texture. What if you can roll/draw only once at a time, so every Edge gets narration when it gets used?

Charles, I suspect the better choice is to find rules that really do what you want so they become part of the character of the game, not an external influence.

Yeah, I'm doubtful it will happen (and your response definitely doesn't push me towards trying it!). I think it might be neat, but I can definitely see the perils, and since I'm not a rulesy person (or a GM-y person), and most of our group is less so, I don't see it happening.

Still, it seems like it would be possible if you started it from the outset.

The closest we've come was way way back (16 years ago?), when Kip ran a AD&D 10 session epic adventure in a world in which he was also running a completely diceless and ruleless game. It was one of the best games I've ever played in, so I am confident that at least at the world level it is doable.

OTOH, it seems to ignorant little me that the current crop of games like MLwM are much more focused in concept than epic AD&D, so that might cause more of a problem.

I can also see games that are designed toward the one and done style clashing with an existing richly developed world. A one and done seems like it would need either greater world creation flexibility (such as Universalis seems like it has), or a very specific world, in which just the right sorts of things are known.

The problem with finding rules that really do what I want is that a) I'm not a game designer, so I can't make my own, but nobody really seems to do rules for the sorts of games I like (maybe HeroQuest, but it seems very setting specific from what I've been able to gather), b) I'm specifically interested in the idea of mixing up the style of play. Most of the time, our games are focused on conversation or possibly investigation, rarely on violence or strongly contested situations, and I like it that way, but our style of play doesn't really handle violence or strongly contested situations very well, and I'd kind of like to have rules for handling those sorts of situations.

I get this loud and clear: "Most of the time, our games are focused on conversation or possibly investigation, rarely on violence or strongly contested situations, and I like it that way, but our style of play doesn't really handle violence or strongly contested situations very well, and I'd kind of like to have rules for handling those sorts of situations."

Unstructured, informal social negotiation works well when nobody's blood is up and when the events in the game can mirror the real-world events - like when your character can win an argument with mine by you winning the argument with me.

It doesn't work so well when something that really matters to one of the players is threatened. From this: "Y'know, I really don't think my character would concede your point, but I'm not sure what she'd say. What do we do?" to this: "No! I'm POSITIVE that my character can totally kick your character's ass! You suck!"

This is a really simple suggestion, but it might work: when a strongly contested situation arises, pause play for just a minute and have everybody - especially including the people whose characters aren't involved - have everybody write down a realistic short-term outcome. Not the most realistic, just any realistic. It can conclude the conflict or it can not.

Then draw one from a hat. That's the one that comes true.

If it doesn't conclude the conflict, keep going, and do it again when it seems like time.

If there's one overwhelmingly likely outcome, that's fine - more than one person will write it down and it'll be more likely to come true.

I think that'd introduce enough impartiality to resolve real conflicts without getting anybody unhappy, while allowing the people involved enough of a voice, and while (obviously) not introducing any implausibility.

Re: Impartiality.This mechanic might shift people from actor stance into director stance, allowing everyone to have more equal input. Instead of being limited to what their character might do in a situation, each person would instead have their full say in negotiations.

It could also create some space from player identification with character, letting people make decisions based on story needs rather than character wants & help ease agreement.

And, random elements can be very useful to help form concensus or give direction. Even if used in a very loose fashion. Gotta love our smiley-face dice. : )

Re: the larger issue:All rpgames flow in and out of use of mechanical structure, but "high narrative structure" probably needs to be very well aligned with the rest of the flow in order to work. The mythic quests of HeroQuest would probably be worth looking into, Charles.

Vincent wrote: Unstructured, informal social negotiation works well when nobody's blood is up and when the events in the game can mirror the real-world events - like when your character can win an argument with mine by you winning the argument with me.

It doesn't work so well when something that really matters to one of the players is threatened.Hmm. This seems like something that may vary from group to group. I know that in my Vinland game, for example, some of the most powerful, most devastating moments were resolved by strict agreement. For example, when Poul was crippled by sacrificing his hand during the spirit test—which was one of those which really bit home, I think.