> I think your entire problem is centred around the goals/prizes you settle
> on. I think it was Mike Holmes who came up with a neat mnemonic to help in
> these situations: "ask the player why" their character is doing what they
> are doing. Keep asking this until you arrive at a goal/prize that will
> provide with a satisfying contest. You will find that it can change what the
> contest is about it just crystallise the players' intentions.
I'm familiar with Mike's advice (it was his writings about HQ that originally lead me to it), and I do go after the intent when applicable. It however breaks immersionist play, IMO, and easily causes the zooming out I want to avoid.
In the example the immediate intentions (Kill Him Now!) and (Escape This Madman!) are IMO clear enough that they don't need to be clarified.
On the other hand, I'm very much against going after meta-intentions (I want to kill him to avenge my brother!), as they remove the immediacy. When play moves at a more abstract level I don't have a problem with that.
> It's my opinion that you should try to avoid goals like "kill him" or "don't
> get killed" - these don't lead to satisfying narratives as often.
Killing people has repercussions, so it's not such a problem. Passive goals are more of an issue to me -- since they lead nowhere at all.
Many thanks for all the comments so far!
However, not to be curmudgeonly, but... I'm not asking for advice on how to resolve these things based on Best Practices Today. I'm going after the pedantic stance here: is there something in the book that I'm missing that talks about these issues.
Cheers,
Powered by hypermail