Post
by WinterRat1 » Sun Jul 26, 2009 6:32 am
Opening Thoughts
Perhaps one solution is to say that potential players only made their characters with statistics, and a paragraph or two of concept.
If Lawson's game involved a more detailed rules system, players could give input on what they want their PCs to be like and let him generate the statistics.
Then, when the temp game starts, use an 'in media res' (in the middle of the action) approach.
Drop the PCs right into the action and let them play out the scene. Even the fastest PbP game will take time to make it through an action scene, which typically involves lots of dice rolling regardless of system.
After the smoke has cleared and the dust has settled on that scene (and the real life probationary period passed), then everyone can worry about what their characters are like.
The same goes for any genre. It's a time honored movie classic to start the movie in the middle of the action, without the audience knowing which characters are important (or anything about them), until after the scene is over and you see who is still getting a lot of screen time.
Example
By way of example, do I really care what the hispanic dude next to me is like when zombies are crashing through the windows? If he's swinging a crowbar and keeping them off me, I could care less about who he is, all I care about at the moment is what he's doing.
Am I thinking about the personality of that screaming top-heavy blonde with the shotgun who's getting swarmed by zombies? Of course not. I'm more concerned about how to stop one of ours from going down and being replaced by one of theirs. And making sure that shotgun isn't lost beneath a pile of zombies, of course.
After we're safe, and we have a chance to catch our breath, then I'll start caring about who I'm dealing with and get to know them better. That's when the real get-to-know-you starts happening, not while we're fighting for our lives against hordes of zombies.
Possible Procedure
In practical terms, what this means is the GM tosses up a basic outline of the game, players toss out a paragraph or two of concept and stats (or let the GM make up stats for them or use pre-gens, whatever), and everyone starts playing, with the game starting right in the middle of the action.
Once the action scene is over and everyone has a chance to catch his or her breath and the getting to know one another starts, pause the game.
If it's been successful and the decision is made to move the game to a more permanent status, everyone can then break to make their PCs for real. Once the PCs are made for real, they can all jump back into the game and continue where they left off.
In this type of game, I suggest an understanding between GM and players that the initial concepts not be set in stone, and considerable flexibility allowed when re-making the characters '˜for real'.
There are plenty of explanations for this, most reasonable being the PCs may have performed above or below their normal capabilities due to the adrenaline of the moment, and from that point on regressed to the mean (i.e. returned to their normal capabilities and their level). Unless players have a total change of heart (e.g. they started as a fighter but decide they want to play a mage instead), you'll probably end up with final versions of PCs that fairly closely resemble their '˜basic concept' form.
For example, if I decide to play a tough talking, grizzled ex-cop, it's unlikely I'm going to suddenly decide what I wanted all along was a nerdy, weak, cowardly drug addict. Much more likely is I tweak my cop. Maybe instead of points in shotguns I want points in handguns, or something like that. We write off the fact that I used a shotgun in the opening scene to expediency and '˜being in the moment', and explain my future preference for handguns as me returning to my normal self.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Beyond the previously stated advantages of allowing new GMs a place to show what they've got and new players a chance to jump into a game (and show us what they've got as well), one major advantage of this approach is expediency.
There have been discussions about how to get new people involved in games quicker without compromising quality, and this is one way. After all, these games are designed to be very short and brief, so if they fail, no big deal. On the flip side, if they survive and '˜graduate' to permanent status, then we've got another promising game on the horizon.
Additionally, a game that starts in the middle of the action could be helpful to people learning the system. They can play a little and get a feel for the GM, the system, what they like and don't like about their PCs, and then after they have a better handle on things they are explicitly allowed to re-create their PC based on the new perspective they have.
I know for myself, sometimes in new games I am not really sure what I want in a character. Actually playing gives me an opportunity to get a better feel for them, which in turn helps me make a better PC than if I spent a lot of time planning the PC before playing. Sometimes nothing trumps simple experience and exposure.
A disadvantage of this is we could end up with an upswing in '˜temporary games', which could be an administrative problem.
Another disadvantage is if people don't know the purpose of these temp games, they may have a wrong perception of the site as one that emphasizes quantity over quality, and not realize we have many long running and quality games on the site.
Attrition will probably be very high among these temp games, and I would not expect many to graduate to permanent status, which may or may not create an image and '˜feel' of Brennor's that is desired.
Conclusion
Anyway, these were some quick thoughts I just whipped out, since Tet put up a comment about wondering how such a thing would work. The above of course is just one possible suggestion, and frankly not a super-well thought out one at that. Just something I slapped together to keep the discussion moving, since I think it's an idea that bears at least a decent look at. Curious to see what everyone else thinks!
Edit: Perhaps instead of thinking of these games as 'temporary games', we should recast them as 'short stories'.
Temporary gives a sense of instability and low growth potential, which in turn minimizes the incentive for personal investment.
Short stories give a sense that while the game is deliberately designed to be brief, it has high growth potential, in the form of sequels. This encourages investment because if players are really interested in the sequel (i.e. graduating the game to permanent status), they should play in a way that encourages that administrative outcome.
This distinction and subsequent connotations may help fight attrition by encouraging people not to think of the game as a 'one-shot' or 'throwaway', but rather as a 'sneak preview' or 'extended trailer' that makes them excited to see the 'final product'.
