{"id":320,"date":"2006-09-12T11:53:48","date_gmt":"2006-09-12T11:53:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/random-average.com\/?p=320"},"modified":"2006-09-12T11:53:48","modified_gmt":"2006-09-12T11:53:48","slug":"building-a-barn-group-campaign-creation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/2006\/09\/building-a-barn-group-campaign-creation\/","title":{"rendered":"Building a Barn &#8212; group campaign creation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Over in the chocolate\/peanut butter post, MT said:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I keep thinking that there are challenges that were made by players (character background, character choices in-game), challenges built by GMs (modules and scenarios, world events), and challenges agreed to by the group as a whole (well, more results-oriented &#8220;group agrees that that&#8217;s the evolution\/eventuality).  (And maybe system challenges: random encounters?)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I&#8217;m going to challenge the term &#8216;challenge&#8217; as it&#8217;s used in this paragraph.  I think &#8216;conflicts&#8217; or &#8216;potential conflicts&#8217; might be clearer and speak more to what each participant is bringing to the table.  Example: &#8220;I hate Corwin&#8221; is a potential conflict introduced by character background.  So is &#8220;I love Deirdre.&#8221;<br \/>\nNow, in that example above, the best GM-conflict that I can quickly think of is this: &#8220;Dierdre wants you to help Corwin&#8221; &#8212; and I&#8217;m shameless &#8212; I would totally hit that sucker like a kid getting to ring the dinner bell. It&#8217;s not a module or scenario or a world event, but a crisis-point, packed with significance: no matter what the player chooses to do, <i>including nothing<\/i>, says something very significant about that character, and expands out like a pebble-ripple to color the tone of the whole game.  I think that making up good Bangs is really all the prep you need to do for a lot of character-oriented games.<sub>2<\/sub>   They are of much less use in games like Capes, or they look very different.<br \/>\nNow, you can take this further &#8212; you might ask all the players to tie themselves into three NPCs from a pre-set list, giving them a relationship to them where something important is at risk; you might ask each player for a &#8216;super-bang&#8217; of their own devising &#8212; something that happens at the beginning of play that takes &#8216;the way things are&#8217; and makes it impossible to simple &#8216;continue as i have been&#8217; &#8212; there&#8217;s lots of ways to get the players to give you more player-authored conflicts or potential conflicts. <sub>3<\/sub><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nI think that&#8217;s a different (if related by marriage) issue.  You talk about rewards.  I see you looking at how human intervention (GM\/PC) connects to game structure (rule-set, etc.) and the resulting rewards.  Are you looking mostly at in-game rewards, or does story=reward?  (Or both? Or neither?)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Both. Definitely both, especially for these types of games that we&#8217;re discussing.<sub>1<\/sub><br \/>\nI&#8217;m just going to make this whole initial post an exercise in ripping off Sorcerer ideas for Amber, aren&#8217;t I?<br \/>\nWhat you might do in Amber is require a player-authored Kicker and give that player a &#8220;spend&#8221; aftere they resolve that Kicker in play &#8212; usually, resolving it means the end to that character&#8217;s current &#8216;arc&#8217;, and that makes a good point to reassess and reevaluate (and spend points! Woo!)  Then they write up a new Kicker for the next session, and play continues.<sub>4<\/sub><br \/>\nThe out of game reward requires a little meta-talk about what the theme is going to be in the game.  &#8220;Family Loyalty&#8221; or &#8220;The Worth of a Promise&#8221; or &#8220;Paying Your Debts&#8221; or something.  (I&#8217;d give you an example from one of my Amber games, but I really can&#8217;t &#8212; I don&#8217;t think we had one.)  Once that&#8217;s done, and the GM is constructing Bangs that (a) hit those &#8216;flags&#8217; the players built into their characters and (b) echo back into the agreed-on theme, you get that non-mechanical &#8220;dude, cool&#8221; moments out of play that equates to a non-game reward.<br \/>\nFootnotes below (so that I can pretend this post isn&#8217;t as long as it really is).<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>1 &#8211; I.e.: Narr games, in which the mechanical reward comes when you address theme in a conflict and the social reward comes from that &#8216;dude, cool&#8217; moment when a scene really resonates.  In a gamist-type game, the mechanical award comes from overcoming tactical challenge, and the social reward comes from that &#8216;dude, cool&#8217; moment when you really put &#8216;your guy&#8217; into some risk in order to step up and beat the challenge.  The social reward in Sim games comes in the &#8216;dude, cool&#8217; moment when you really evoke the setting in a way that makes it easy to immerse in, I think.<br \/>\n2 &#8211; In narr-jargon terms, that crisis point is a &#8216;bang&#8217;.  It&#8217;s a decision point that the character can&#8217;t ignore (or where ignoring is a choice they can make that means something), where the decision says something about the character that maybe we didn&#8217;t know before.  In prep for most of my games, I come up with about three Bangs for each character, and the resulting events\/actions\/conflicts that involve or stem from those Bangs will easily fill a game session &#8212; I don&#8217;t do any kind of prep beyond that, and reminding myself to have NO SOLUTION OR PREDICTIONS OF THEIR CHOICES IN MIND.<br \/>\n3 &#8211; Entirely stolen from the Sorcerer concept of Kickers.  Kickers and Bangs are probably the most-cribbed parts of the Sorcerer RPG.<br \/>\n4 &#8211; Or they switch to a new guy or something. Whatever.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Over in the chocolate\/peanut butter post, MT said: I keep thinking that there are challenges that were made by players<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-musing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/320","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=320"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/320\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/randomaverage.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}