Subject:
|
Types of Sectors (Long post)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming.starship
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 May 2003 10:43:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1555 times
|
| |
|
|
In Reply to: Types of Sectors
posted by Galactic Mediator Hendo on May 05, 2003 at 13:34:16
> As I see it, a "Freeform Gameplay" sector is
> any active sector where the actions can be
> pretty much anything, but where the SM is not
> offering any specific plot.
> A "Trade and Social Gameplay" sector is (by
> this definition) a type of Freeform sector, but
> where the SM wants to disallow any heavy
> elements (like combat), and rather focuses just
> on offering adventurers a place to rest or
> repair ships.
> And, as one would expect, an "Adventure
> Gameplay" sector is where the SM is offering a
> specific plot or time-sensitive setting where
> adventurers have set encounters or challenges
> to overcome or solve.
> I started using these terms on the Sector
> Registry page to give some idea of what a
> player might expect from a sector before flying
> ships there.
> So, if my definitions here are acceptable, I
> think that Arbor fits more into the Freeform
> catagory than anything else. Any thoughts?
I'm not sure that this analysis really maps the dimensions of the differences.
Specifically, I don't think that "Trade and Social Gameplay" indicates an SM
disallowing anything in particular, much less combat. New Pacific is a
"Trade and Social Gameplay" sector (and rightly so termed) but you're
welcome to power up your weapons and go for it if that seems meet.
It seems to me that "Trade and Social Gameplay" sectors just like "Adventure
Gameplay" sectors except that something is missing. The missing something is
the sector mission.
"Adventure Gameplay" sectors have a mission to which players are invited.
The mission will involve participation in a range of possible sub-missions,
from which elements of a larger puzzle can be gleaned, which may lead to the
satisfactory solving of the puzzle.
I must confess to having no certain idea at all as to what a "Freeform
Gameplay" sector is, despite having read all the posts here on the subject.
In the same was as "Trade and Social Gameplay" is a lesser, diminutive form
of "Adventure Gameplay" (without the Mission, sub-mssions, and
inter-relationships), I am guessing that a "Freeform Gameplay" sector is a
diminutive of "Trade and Social Gameplay", without the SM taking
responsibility for all non-player elements.
On this basis, there are three sector types (open to the possibility we
could dream up many more) and two distinguishing dimensions.
The dimensions are The Mission, and The Breadth of the SM Role.
Either there is a mission/sub-mission set or there is not.
Either the SM is responsible for all non-player events, or he is not.
If there is a mission/sub-mission set, then the SM must be responsible for
all non-player events (otherwise he cannot control the unfolding of the
mission and the player consequences of their progress through the mission).
This would be an "Adventure". Examples from my own experience might be
Sector 62, Spraw and Helix.
If there is no mission/sub-mission, but the SM is responsible for all
non-player events, and players may only detail their own plans and actions
(and may not detail the actions of any other element in the sector - that
being the SMs role), this would be a "Trade and Social" sector, like New
Pacific.
If there is no mission/sub-mission, and the SM takes responsibility for only
some of the non-player activities, leaving it open to players to decide the
consequences of some of their actions, such as suits the SM from time to
time, this would be what we seem to be calling a "Freeform" sector.
I note that my understanding of "Freeform" must be flawed, because I cannot
for the life of me see how that system could possibly work to the enjoyment
and satisfaction of all. There would seem to be a continuing tension between
players desiring and assuming specific results from non-player events, and
the SM needing to intervene detail some outcomes. Without clarity as to
precisely who has control of what, I would have thought chaos, tension and
disappointment would be the natural consequences.
It seems to me (from my admittedly meagre experience in rpg) that the bare
minimum for a succesful (enjoyable to all participants and SM) sector is the
SM taking responisbility for all non-player events. While this requires more
work from SMs, and a bigger picture imagination, anything less does not
appear tenable.
I can see how freeform might work in an existing, detailed and jointly
understood setting (ie rpg-ing in the Star Trek universe, or the Star Wars
universe) where all the participants are subscribed to a large body of
published material on what is possible and what is acceptable, but here in
Starship, we have no such bible. Not having a bible as such confers benefits
in terms of encountering many new ways to think about things. It als confers
the limitation that we cannot assume that we all have the same basic
understanding of what is possible and what is likely to happen in any given
situation, so we need for the SMs to take that responsibility.
Or not, obviously ;-)
And its very nice to be here on Lugnet!
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Starship Bible (was: Types of Sectors)
|
| (...) <snip-a-dee-doo-da> (...) Yes, it is nice to be on good ol' Lugnet! And why don't we have a "bible"? The SMs have to put together their sectors from nothing, so there is certainly no lack of imagination in this group! Some sort of Galactic (...) (21 years ago, 6-May-03, to lugnet.gaming.starship)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
