Correct, see the prep for play thread
Trotsky
> Because his campaigns are often of relatively short length, and
eventually reach a natural conclusion, this is not so hard to achieve
as it would be in an indefinite, ongoing campaign.<
Indeed. To some extent this was formed out of play with Red Cow. I realized that play was more intense for us when we focued on bringing the player/setting stories to conclusion, rather than continually deferring them. Once we switched to that it was more satisfying. I have found that long-term games peter out anyway, and personally have begun to find it more satisfying to move to conclusion.
You could use rewards to encourage this behaviour in char gen: I.e. a hero point for everyone relationship establihsed to an npc in the setting during char gen.
Jane
> Ah! Yes, in that context, the advice makes much more sense. Shame,
it means I won't be able to pinch his ideas<
Agreed that this approach has more value in 'protagonist play' than in 'party play' There are differing models there, for example relationships don't tend to be so useful in geographically diverse games, unless you welcome Jeff's approach of encouraging one or two people to 'uncover' relationships in play. But in that model it does not have to be everyone. Games like Red Cow tend to be focused in one place. However, even in Swords you might set up key npcs in your temple and ask players to take relationships with them etc.
Trotsky
> When he does adapt a scenario, he replaces many of the key NPCs
with established NPCs from his campaign.<
More often I tend to use a more classical party play approach when playing out published material. There are pros/cons to both. Linear 'party play' for example works well when everyone just wants to buy their ticket and ride the coaster at the fair. In that case folks want twists, turns, drops, and thrills and surrender the ability to drive the train for the experience. They judge their entertaiment on the design of the coaster.
I think they are different experiences. It's a question of knowing what you and your players want and when.
But, in principle, yes you could adapt such material in this way.
Jane
> You know, I don't think I've ever played in a campaign
> like that, much less run one. It must take a lot of
> advance planning,
You trade set-up time for less time once you are running the game. You can get away with nothing, because you improvise, although it is more effective if you can spare some time to think about what might happen next beforehand.
Trotsky
> Plus, he's relatively lenient in allowing new relationships
to be created in play, which helps.<
Sure, though I am lenient about all creation during play :-)
Powered by hypermail