Posts Tagged by social contract
| June 19, 2008 | Posted by Martin Ralya |
(The first three steps, and my definition of “roleplaying-intensive,” are in Part 1; tips 4-6 are in Part 2.) 7. Make Good on Your Promises By this point, you’ve made two promises to your players, one explicit and one implicit: Here’s the kind of game I’m going to run. This is the explicit promise you made in in step three, when you pitched a roleplaying-intensive campaign to your players. The follow-through here is simple: Run that kind of game. Don’t suddenly change your mind and…
| May 21, 2008 | Posted by Martin Ralya |
(The first three steps — and my definition of “roleplaying-intensive” — are in the first post in this series.) 4. Choose Your System Wisely Suggested by the Stew’s own Patrick Benson in the comments on the first roleplaying-intensive game post, picking a system that reinforces the kind of game you want to run is critical. Some games are just better suited to a focus on roleplaying than others — despite all sharing the common term “roleplaying games,” not all RPGs are created equal in this…
| May 12, 2008 | Posted by Martin Ralya |
There are probably as many ways to define “roleplaying-intensive” as there are gamers, but for talking purposes here’s the definition I use: A game in which mechanics take a backseat to character interaction, where all (or nearly all) in-game decisions are purely character-driven and where most (or all) in-game conversation happens in-character. I’ve been running a Mage: The Awakening chronicle since October of 2007, and from the outset I planned it as a roleplaying-driven game. Credit goes to my group for really getting into the…
| May 12, 2008 | Posted by Phil Vecchione |
In the world of RPG’s there are several classic RPG arguments that float around on various RPG blogs, message boards, and even raise their head in seminars at gaming conventions. I like to call these arguments, “spam arguments” because they are as original as the Nigerian 419 email message, and are just about as pointless. In hopes to have some kind of exorcism or cleansing ritual for Gnome Stew, I am going to present these 5 pointless arguments, discuss the root cause for each one,…
| May 12, 2008 | Posted by Kurt "Telas" Schneider |
One of the most important and least-discussed elements in a successful game is a shared set of assumptions about how and why the game is played. But many gaming groups want to jump straight to “the fun stuff” without making sure that everyone shares the same definition of “fun” (or even the same definition of “stuff”). A few minutes or even hours spent ensuring that everyone at the table agrees with (or at least is comfortable with) everyone else’s assumptions will prevent some potential disasters…
