RPG Metaplots and group dynamics (Was Re: [UA] Kult)

[Doug Stalker]

Ken Nelson wrote:

>
> --I don't see the system much as combat-oriented
> either.  I see it more as an intimidation-oriented.
> The threat of violence & pain & looking like you'd do
> it being enough to resolve stiuations.

I hadn't though of it that way, but intimidation should be enough for
most situations.

>  But it all
> comes down to the gm & players.
>

It's fascinating to watch the group dynamics of roleplaying.  At teh
moment the group I play with has becoem rather static, which lends a lot
of stability to games.  Previously there were a lot of players at the
gaming club, who would get drawn on to form groups for various games.
When GMing, teh first thing to do was be careful selecting players.
There were some player-player combinations that were to be avoided at
all costs.  Other combinations would work only with certain GMS/games
settings.  The worst example of this was a star-wars game (The dark
styder campaign) where the GM said "Unless you wan't to discuss
anything, the hyperspace jump is uneventful" and it took 6 hours of
bickering before we got there.

> --I ran it once so far and things went badly for the
> players.  Luck plays as much or more of a factor as
> skill does when it comes to combat.

I'm sure this is true in real life too, but someone with real combat
experience experience could probably say for sure.

> > >
> >
> > I'd like to do the opposite and reduce combat rolls
> > to make them simpler.  I think UA would really
> > slow down with excessive combat, especially with
> > everyone rolling inititive once per action.  I'd
> > rather have something quick and dangerous, as this
> > encourages the PCs to avoid it.  The lethal
> > part is already there... I had a comment from one
> > player "I've gone from mowing down hundreds of
> > enemies in Feng Shui to runing from a single mook
> > with a gun"
> >
> -I found UA's combat system was real quick in the
> couple of cases where I used it, nice.  Now I need to
> run it again with a higher number of combatants.

I've found this too, but I have a nagging fear that it will slow down in
heavy action.  If I ever run heavy combat (and I've decided the only way
to do this is if the players do something stupid. ("True Order of Sait
Germain?  We can take 'em!"))

>
>
> --It also places an extra burden on the players too.
> To come up with those imaginative solutions without
> having to resort to violence, the chance of them
> getting killed is reduced.

It is an extra burden for players, but it's a nice extra burden.  It's
spending time  thinking up plans that avoid violence that lets us look
down on AD&D players as immature Roll players.  (Yes, this is a very
broad generalization of AD&D players, but I have yet to meet any real
exceptions to it)

>
>
> > >
> >
> > PCs that are convinced that the are objectivly
> > good/evil would be easier.  You could even argue
> > that from a role playing perspective they are
> > identical to the above, since a player shoudl only
> > be able to interact with the game world through hs
> > characters subjective universe.
>
> --You may want to give a check to John Tynes site for
> 'Power Kill' if you haven't.  That sounds a little bit
> what you're thinking of with some dfferences.
>

Reading Power Kill reminds me of teh Self-Referentiality metaplot in
Over the edge.  Very hard to do properly, but very rewarding when it is.

Has anyone ever tried either of these metaplots? I'd love to know how
they went in practice.
_____________________________________________________________
  Network Operations Engineer - Big Pond Advance Satellite
 Ericsson Australia - Level 5, 184 The Broadway, Sydney 2000
  Ph: +61-416-085-390   Email: doug at satellite.bigpond.com



_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua