@Misadventure said:
@Wizz said:
explicitly set the plot to occur alongside the events of the movies
I wouldn't do this. I would approach this like some approach time travel. You can be near events, but the end result will be the same. Better, you'll be somewhere else, where your stakes can matter to you and not affect the core canon at all.
You are literally answering my question with the thing I am questioning, every single time. You keep saying "I would like a game where players can do their own thing but the story remains the same," and I ask, "WHY should that be?" And your answer is, "I would like a game where players can do their own thing but the story remains the same." WHY GODDAMN IT WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT ANSWER MY QUESTION
Why do I object so much? Because Star Wars, a cinematic heroic arc, depends on and endless string of events to arrive where they do, with massive stakes. I don't care if Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen die, or have to go into hiding, or were Vaders hidden babysitters and the bodies were locals meant to disguise their withdrawal. That has as little or as much at stake as you wish to create.
However, trying to lay out a game that will try to play through the Battle of Yavin is foolhardy. Do you give everyone middle of the road rolls, so its pure luck if they manage to defeat the Deathstar? Do you give them awesome stats/Force Points so that they recreate it at will? Either you basically roll a a die and hope for that natural 20, or you are just fooling yourself. Why so binary an evaluation? Because, either you destroy the Death Star in time, or you don't.
That's the point, that there's a choice and a possibility for change. That's why we're playing a game and, for the zillionth time, not watching the movie. I feel like we're going in circles here.
Using a random system along the lines of D20/D&D etc, with movement rates, a map your players sorta know, and a zillion random rolls, I am 95% certain it will always end the Rebellion. The most exciting option there is not "Hey look I didn't do as I said I would and cover my squadron, I blew up and extra gun tower and now there is no Rebellion", but at best the end of the Death Star and the Rebellion.
But it isn't a binary either/or. Like you said, for the story to reach the same conclusion there is an endless sequence of events, all of which are open to interpretation on a game, more so because you're involving a group of inventive collaborative storytellers instead of just one person and that exponentially multiplies the possibilities. That's what's fun about it, the discovery.
It's such a binary for the entire setting. if you want the Rebellion to be trashed and take out some/most/all the canon characters, I see that better as a choice of story background, not some random rolls and effectively random player decisions. Unlike WW2, that particular moment is massively personal with galactic consequences, and no way to make a satisfying game out of it.
Again, that's a massive assumption on your part, and I don't follow your logical leap at all. I think people can come up with fun and inventive things and work together on them without some condescending "director's touch," I've seen it happen. Even when it wasn't an outcome I personally wanted, I enjoyed the process. It seems like you don't enjoy the chaos of this medium, but I do? I don't know.
Either you're going to fail, or you've been given your successes, and now everyone else has to deal with your personal choices as the basis of the entire thing they came to play through.
Again, I don't follow your train of thought here. Maybe using the Battle of Yavin is a pretty dramatic example, but doesn't that happen anyway in any RP scenario? It's all about action-reaction. sometimes with enormous stakes. Either you find that fun or you don't.
How is one players decisions backed by random dice and a system stacked either for failure or success better than one Staffers decisions?
Because one option means the outcome is not entirely in the player's control, and in theory any and all players could potentially be in that same position and free to roll those dice, and the other option is arbitrary Staff fiat where one person's word is canon for everybody's stories, every time, period. Again, I ask you, how is that fun? In my opinion, even the illusion of choice and consequence means I'm playing a better game.
I am all for player created content and consequences. I am part of the camp who doesn't think we should come to an agreement about what will happen, but I do favor looking at things above the round by round random dice rolls to create a coherent direction. That's the point of game design, a coherent direction, and since I want dozens of players to spend their time playing in and around and about these events, I'd prefer it have a direction too.
And it still can. That's the whole point of role playing, it's not set in stone. You can have a larger direction but to me the mark of a good GM/ST/whatever is to be ready to roll with the punches, even if sometimes that means the players jump the rails and do something unexpected. It's maybe arguable that in a MU* environment not everyone (or anyone) is in it just for the fun of everybody and that some players are going to do stupid or selfish things, or things that don't make sense to you or your idea of what the story should be, but you still have more control than they do and can tug the reins when it seems like things are going to get too out of hand. I just don't like the idea that Staff are so worried about their precious vision that that little tug becomes a vicious beat-down until the story is hammered back into what they wanted it to be. For fuck's sake, go write a book if that's what you want.
