Another weekend of LARPing, another weekend where I was left sad and angry and disappointed. There were either issues with the character, or issues with the game, or both. ( Read more... )
Not my game, not my players, and so not my problem. I'm responsible for my design choices, not Ryan's.
Does that affect the validity of my comment? You brought up the imbalance in Camelot, and for you to back-peddle away from your own example with such rapidity makes it hard to move the conversation forward in terms of an example leading to a general case.
But I'll also note that it is often difficult to distinguish between design problems and runtime problems. It is not unsuual to have characters or plots that look strong on paper fizzle completely
I'd characterise that differently and say that you have highlighted the general case for a design failure, and in a way that applies to almost all design failures in all fields. I drew this great steel beam detail that looked great on paper, but wasn't buildable: that's a design problem in a nutshell. I wrote this great script for a play that read great, but wasn't performable: that's a design problem. I wrote this great plot for my LARP that failed in the field: that's a design problem.
Go away and find your authority source to quote, but try not to back-peddle too fast from it when I disagree with it.
And if they're sensible, they'll make that clear to the relevant players.
I guess that's right - if I pitch you a character as one who's destined to go down and you play it, it's on you if you don't like losing. However, I seriously doubt that virtually any player characters are actually written that way. I haven't seen the character sheet Dale got for his "antagonist" role, but I doubt his stated objectives were "Chew the scenery and try to make Nick look awesome as he takes you down". His character would have been written with goals from his own perspective rather than the needs of the game. So straight away, there's a real design and communication problem here that was rescued by a talented player.
I'd further point to your idea that PC and NPCs are distinguished only by a "label" if a GM isn't there to pull the strings as a bit one-dimensional. The real key difference is that PCs exist to be the centres of stories, and NPCs exist to facilitate those stories. So there is a complete structural inversion in the goals, personality and structure of NPCs that should be reflected in the way they are designed and written up. If that isn't being reflected in game design, then I'd point to that as one major and conceptually easy leap forward that needs to occur right now.
Does that affect the validity of my comment? You brought up the imbalance in Camelot, and for you to back-peddle away from your own example with such rapidity makes it hard to move the conversation forward in terms of an example leading to a general case.
Ryan made conscious design choices (some weakly involved / unnecessary characters) to allow Camelot to run with a variable number of players. That has consequences (a poor game for the players of those characters if they are present). I tend to make the opposite choice - I try and make every character I write necessary and involved (note: "try". I don't always succeed). That too has consequences (low variability; meaning the game requires a full cast to run and will suffer badly if it doesn't). Which approach works better depends on whether you have an environment where games reliably fill or not.
I wrote this great plot for my LARP that failed in the field: that's a design problem.
It may be a design problem. It may also be a casting problem (someone gets the wrong character, either because the GM screwed up, the "right" character wasn't available, or the information they provided to aid casting was wrong or useless), a runtime problem (counterparties just too busy; plot triaged), or even a player problem (player or counterparty just having a bad day). With a limited dataset, its difficult to identify which, and with an only ~50% chance that the game will ever run again (yes, really; as of last year only 48 of 106 NZ theatreforms run in the last 5 years ran more than once; dataset here) there is little incentive to waste flops trying to improve the existing game, rather than writing the next one.
The article was Steve Hatherley's "If it ain't broke, don't rewrite it". It appears to no longer be extant due to the demise of his FLAR site, but may show up at the UK Freeforms wiki eventually.
I guess that's right - if I pitch you a character as one who's destined to go down and you play it, it's on you if you don't like losing. However, I seriously doubt that virtually any player characters are actually written that way.
The Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow was certainly a player character. He was the protagonist of his own story. That story was most likely to end in failure, but it certainly wasn't destined, and in any case he didn't know that. I as a player knew, but that was part of the process of ensuring that I was well-cast (specifically, that I didn't mind losing - a question which is now common on casting surveys).
In the absence of a character sheet, I can't comment on super-hero wedding reception.
Does that affect the validity of my comment? You brought up the imbalance in Camelot, and for you to back-peddle away from your own example with such rapidity makes it hard to move the conversation forward in terms of an example leading to a general case.
But I'll also note that it is often difficult to distinguish between design problems and runtime problems. It is not unsuual to have characters or plots that look strong on paper fizzle completely
I'd characterise that differently and say that you have highlighted the general case for a design failure, and in a way that applies to almost all design failures in all fields. I drew this great steel beam detail that looked great on paper, but wasn't buildable: that's a design problem in a nutshell. I wrote this great script for a play that read great, but wasn't performable: that's a design problem. I wrote this great plot for my LARP that failed in the field: that's a design problem.
Go away and find your authority source to quote, but try not to back-peddle too fast from it when I disagree with it.
And if they're sensible, they'll make that clear to the relevant players.
I guess that's right - if I pitch you a character as one who's destined to go down and you play it, it's on you if you don't like losing. However, I seriously doubt that virtually any player characters are actually written that way. I haven't seen the character sheet Dale got for his "antagonist" role, but I doubt his stated objectives were "Chew the scenery and try to make Nick look awesome as he takes you down". His character would have been written with goals from his own perspective rather than the needs of the game. So straight away, there's a real design and communication problem here that was rescued by a talented player.
I'd further point to your idea that PC and NPCs are distinguished only by a "label" if a GM isn't there to pull the strings as a bit one-dimensional. The real key difference is that PCs exist to be the centres of stories, and NPCs exist to facilitate those stories. So there is a complete structural inversion in the goals, personality and structure of NPCs that should be reflected in the way they are designed and written up. If that isn't being reflected in game design, then I'd point to that as one major and conceptually easy leap forward that needs to occur right now.
Reply
Ryan made conscious design choices (some weakly involved / unnecessary characters) to allow Camelot to run with a variable number of players. That has consequences (a poor game for the players of those characters if they are present). I tend to make the opposite choice - I try and make every character I write necessary and involved (note: "try". I don't always succeed). That too has consequences (low variability; meaning the game requires a full cast to run and will suffer badly if it doesn't). Which approach works better depends on whether you have an environment where games reliably fill or not.
I wrote this great plot for my LARP that failed in the field: that's a design problem.
It may be a design problem. It may also be a casting problem (someone gets the wrong character, either because the GM screwed up, the "right" character wasn't available, or the information they provided to aid casting was wrong or useless), a runtime problem (counterparties just too busy; plot triaged), or even a player problem (player or counterparty just having a bad day). With a limited dataset, its difficult to identify which, and with an only ~50% chance that the game will ever run again (yes, really; as of last year only 48 of 106 NZ theatreforms run in the last 5 years ran more than once; dataset here) there is little incentive to waste flops trying to improve the existing game, rather than writing the next one.
The article was Steve Hatherley's "If it ain't broke, don't rewrite it". It appears to no longer be extant due to the demise of his FLAR site, but may show up at the UK Freeforms wiki eventually.
I guess that's right - if I pitch you a character as one who's destined to go down and you play it, it's on you if you don't like losing. However, I seriously doubt that virtually any player characters are actually written that way.
The Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow was certainly a player character. He was the protagonist of his own story. That story was most likely to end in failure, but it certainly wasn't destined, and in any case he didn't know that. I as a player knew, but that was part of the process of ensuring that I was well-cast (specifically, that I didn't mind losing - a question which is now common on casting surveys).
In the absence of a character sheet, I can't comment on super-hero wedding reception.
Reply
Leave a comment