Good idea! I'm a big fan of apotheoses myself. It'd be nice to cut 'em out . . .

(Reply) (Thread)

Man, sucks if you're running a Vampire game, eh?

(Reply) (Thread)

About as much as if you're running Sorcerer.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

One can only hope not.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, I tend to think in that case you're kind of screwed already.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I weep.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Oh, you'd THINK that professional writers would cut that stuff out. But as I'm reading some old X-Men comics, let me tell you, some don't. If I read about the "ultimate expression" of something one more time, I do not know if I will be able to stop myself from finding Chris Claremont and breaking his kneecaps, hehe.

(Reply) (Thread)

My current hate-on is for the phrase "closely guarded secret." Sometimes, though, I find there's a point where genre and fan expectations demand a certain degree of repetitiveness.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Which, in some ways, is worse than "ultimate expression". No matter how overused and cliched, it at least tries to describe something. As opposed to a closely guarded secret . . . as opposed to the non-guarded secrets? So that phrase combines triteness with redundancy.

I don't object to a certain amount of formalization and repetition in serial media. I mean, sure, we all know that with great power comes great responsibility, and that Wolverine is the best at what he does but what he does isn't very nice. But Claremont ultimate expressionized three different things in one page, and there's not a lot of text in one comic book page, hehe. I was wondering not only about his own discipline as a writer, but also his editor's commitment to editing at that point. ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So, you mentioned Chris Claremont, but what about any professional writers? :}

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

No open-ended problems or extended continuity. All cases are discrete episodes unto themselves.

No ongoing villains.

No statless or impossibly powerful antagonists.

No ascensions into godhood or interactions with divine or semi-divine entities.

I did the same thing with a project I am working on. So far the results have been very good, especially the having "...all cases are discrete episodes unto themselves." This has freed the game I am working on, has given it the tone I was looking for.

(Reply) (Thread)

This is only passingly related, but I'm curious to know your take on it. Do you think that the, how shall I say, theory behind pen-and-paper RPGs has moved away from episodic adventures and more toward storyline-driven campaigns? And, if so, what do you think the repercussions of this shift are, and do you think that the change is likely to remain?

(Reply) (Thread)

All cases are discrete episodes unto themselves.

This is maybe the most valuable constraint I've ever discovered. I've actually discovered that sticking to this makes it easier to add things like ongoing villains or extended continuity, because I can now draw a sharp distinction between those things and the things that are meant to be rewarding here & now, during this particular instance of play. I can add a dangling plot thread, and it's much easier for everyone to construe it to mean, "This is a bit of extended continuity. It's something that you may find entertaining, if you come back for the next session. But it's not something that you have to agonize over during this session, and rest assured that you'll have a full and satisfying resolution to this session regardless."

(Reply) (Thread)

Let me know if you're scoping for another player some time Robin? I'd love to give your table another shot ;)

(Reply) (Thread)

I think this kind of scathing self-inventory is what is useful in any artistic profession, and equally as useful in game mastering.

I think you've inspired me to sit down and try to come up with my personal mannerisms and try to push myself outside of those constraints.

However, I have this question: at what point does writing style / personal style end and mannerisms begin? Is "having a style" a bad thing?

I would answer that it isn't necessarily a bad thing; but like all things should be examined and used with awareness, not in an unconscious way.

(Reply) (Thread)

On the border between mannerisms and style: That's a great question. Right now, I'll float this possible answer: It's about control. When you employ it, it's a style. When it freeloads in your work without your invitation, it's a mannerism. If you don't have the control over your craft to spot and correct that stuff, then you've still got work to do.

Writers who can translate their voice onto the page with clarity and verve are a treat, and they can proud of their skills. But writers who can command other voices, who can craft work of a particular tone and style through rewrites, editing and careful self-scrutiny are pure sterling.

If you've got a good voice, you can be a popular and successful singer. If you can control your voice, you can be a genuinely good singer.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

We've just started a Dogs In The Vinyard campaign, and I'm running it. I've found that my GM-ing instincts are counter to the advice Vincent gives on how to present the scenario to the players. Just running a few sessions has helped me be more decisive in my regular Everway campaign.

I guess my question would be "what were you trying to achieve with each of those manenrisms and are you skipping those objectives or achieving them with alternate tools?" For instance, if you were using ongoing villains to
A: not have to write a new complex villain every week AND
B: increase the player's emotional buy-in by letting them develop a desire to defeat the villain.
You might be passing on A and have some other mechanism for B.

(Reply) (Thread)

Excellent. Please do post a follow-up to this, so that we may all learn from your work.

For the last few years, I realize I've been doing the opposite of this: I've been actively, but without much strategy or formality, trying to avoid my mannerisms and many of my old tricks when running games. It's been all right, but ultimately, my old tricks were just fine. I may have learned a few new ones in my effort to shy away from highly cinematic gaming (complete with color palettes, implied camera moves and so forth, of which you are familiar), but ultimately, the players have a better time when I go with what I know how to do.

This is especially true at convention games, which feel more and more like gigs as the years progress, because these adventures are often new for the "audience" (sic) but old hat for me. The fact is, though, that in the end I feel the best after a game when the players have a fun ride, and that's where my sense of accomplishment comes from. Me growing as a storyteller (and, by extension, hopefully a writer as well) is nice, but there's a time and a place for that. When the orbit of personal betterment aligns with the orbit of an entertained audience, the tumblers of the universe click into place and All Is As It Should Be. But more often, of late, I'm teaching myself to appreciate a good adventure, well played, in place of a work of genius, forgettably performed.

(Reply) (Thread)

At least two of the rules:

Gods cannot directly act in the world, they can only act through intermediaries.

The PCs won't always be rushing to stop some big ritual spell from going off.

(Reply) (Thread)

I think that should read, Do not undermine this, especially out of character.

Charles

(Reply) (Thread)