> In a RPG with a group of characters there are multiple stories
> even if some stories are shared by all. I know there's a problem
> in a typical RPG session with concentrating on one character but
> to say they haven't got a story because it doesn't involve the
> whole party seems wrong.
If the question is whether a conflict resolution is part of a plot (in which all of the characters are heavily invested) or a sub-plot (featuring only a sub-set of the party), you'll probably find yourself looking for ways to move the sub-plots forward more quickly, or in smaller chunks, than the main plot.
I have a feeling I'm still failing to address your point on this...
> I can see at least as much interest in failure as in success.
In which case you should use the standard method and not the costly success.
However...
> The immediate decision is does the character try again or not?
If you can see that the character/player is so heavily invested in an action that he's going to keep trying until he succeeds, use of the Costly Success mechanic allows you to get to the same inevitable endpoint faster. In both cases, the question is not whether he'll succeed, but how hard it will be to do so.
This enables you to move on to new obstacles
instead of spinning your narrative wheels repeatedly
describing attempts to overcome the same obstacle.
Repetition can heighten the impact of a
sequence -- if the character fails once or twice and
then succeeds. In gaming, though, it often leads to
a frustrating circular structure.
Initiation will often be something that the player will keep going at until he succeeds. It's also (to bring in your other point) a sub-plot,in which other players will only be lightly invested. For these two reasons you may find you'll get happier, more engaged players by making it a Costly Success.
Take care >>> Robin
Powered by hypermail