>> The storytelling vision of what rpg's should be like
>> hides a key point:
>>
>> In Tolkien, all the characters were under Tolkien's
>> control. He didn't have to worry about the actor {or
>> in RPG terms, player} of Frodo complaining that he did not
>> get to hit anything, or the player of Galadriel complaining
>> that her part was not big enough.
>
>Hmm, good point. I can't see Frodo's player coming up with that
>complaint if he'd chosen to play a pacifist hobbit, though. What
>do you think: was the Fellowship a balanced party?
Not in RPG terms. Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn are full characters. I'd regard the rest as sidekicks in HQ terms.
>Galadriel was an NPC tied to one location, to my mind.
Yes.
>> b) the significance of a part has no objective measurement.
>
>No. This is probably why I'm getting confused. I can "feel" relative
>significances, but I'd probably do a better job if my judgement was
>based on some thing more concrete.
That you can feel the relative significances but can't express them concretely indicates that they are subjective. Your perception may not be the same as the other people involved.
There are some indicators - opportunities to speak, act and take decisions, for example. If every decision is made as a group then there will probably be a minority of players making most of them. In a traditional dungeon bash it doesn't matter much, the GM is controlling the game flow anyway. But in a story game everyone needs to make a contribution to the story.
>> It is possible to run a combat oriented
>> game, in which the healer of the group is objectively
>> crucial {no way would anyone get half way through without a
>> healer} and yet leave the player of the healer feeling
>> marginalized. This can happen if the other characters
>> treat the healer as a magic item,
>
>sounds like 20 years ago playing D&D! When the healer started
>blackmailing the rest of the party, or deciding who got healed
>on the basis of their expressed ethics, things livened up (and
>no, it wasn't me playing the healer, I was the thief/illusionist).
>But the player has to "push" to do this.
This is "the party" ethic and it's not restricted to D&D. The healer is expected to heal members of the party so that the party succeeds. The result is that by default they have no decisions to make. The GM's counter to that is making sure everyone has choices and decisions to make. I'd aim for at least one important decision for each player in each F2F session. More is probably better.
>> Also, imagine how your
>> scenario would play out if you simply dropped one of the
>> PC's. If one of them is completely dispensable, you
>> probably have a problem with relative part significance.
>
>hmm... I tend as a GM to aim each "scene" at a specific player, with
>party agreement, often based on who's got most free time to post
>during that period.
That's a difference between F2F and email games. A scene is a lot shorter than a normal F2F session so not being part of the action is less significant and doesn't exclude the player. If someone has bothered to turn up and spends the whole 2-4 hour session sitting on the sidelines the game balance is wrong.
>> Also, combat in RPG's is like chase scenes in
>> action movies. When the GM's imagination fails,
>> combat becomes a good fall back option.
>
>(wince). I know as a plot device it worked for Raymond Chandler,
>but surely we can do better?
Not if imaginations fail. I'd suggest if the GM is that out of ideas then they should have a break for a few months.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail