thread: 2005-05-06 : Brainstorming from the Core
On 2005-05-10, Eric Finley wrote:
Fun. But let's twiddle those groups somewhat. Status quos (status quii?) are boring. It's all about the relationships to the specific people. As Vincent said, we really want the changelings to be brought into conflict with the institutions.
Instead of giving the groups (GMs) dice based on in-game leverage, give it to them based on that desired situation. Say one die per PC currently (actively) at odds with said institution, roll and keep yer highest. "Actively at odds with" is our mechanical recognition of sitch. Tentatively: each PC has named slots; one opposition group per slot. "Being pursued by..." "Being seduced by..." "Working to bring down..." and maybe "Being sheltered by...". As a GM, the number of mentions of your group is your mechanical leverage. Conversely your scene-framing and initiation privileges are inversely proportional to this value (poorest roll of those leverage dice, or what have you).
Oh, and per Polaris etc. I would question dividing GM authority along the lines of specific groups rather than along the different GM duties. I do wonder if this won't lead to stuff falling through the cracks, and/or regions of overlap. That's been my experience with (pre-theory) multiGM stuff - "the Black Forest is mine" phenomenon. Not a fantastic way to split it up. We move forward - but we may wish to modify this.
How 'bout this... if we've got four (or however many) groups designated per my above, "Working to bring down..." and so forth, why don't those denote the GM duties? "Being sheltered by..." is responsible for scene framing; "Being pursued by..." is responsible for prices; "Working to bring down..." is responsible for stakes, and so forth. More clearly, if my character Reji (prn. "Heji") has the paramilitary police as his "Being sheltered by..." entry, and Vincent is in charge of the paramils, then Vincent is in charge of scene framing for Reji's scenes. Regardless of whether they involve the police - in fact, generally they won't want to, they'll want to involve some other group.
The sitch rules above are, I think - I think - an example of where I'd druther refocus discussion. The six-point checklist rocks, but is easy. It's the A+B+C of theme that's our topic. How do you weld A+B+C into the body of the system such that it's not merely easy but inescapable?
- Eric
