Quote from: John MorrowYou could do some very interesting things with the whole Dukes of Hazzard, Sheriff Lobo theme, especially if you play the corrupt officials seriously (Sheriff Lobo was originally pretty serious) instead of for laughs -- or maybe play them for dark laughs.  There are some other relentless sheriff sources from that period, including the movies Convoy and Smokey and the Bandit.  Break out your 70s CB Lingo book and you could also do a rolling game based around trucks and truckers ala BJ and the Bear (a veritable cornucopia of 70s cliches including Vietnam Vet, truck driver, local corruption, hot women, animal companion, etc., which, again, started out more seriously than it ended up).

Good ideas John. Well as far as the whole chase motif goes, they are aware that two extremely feared Fed agents have been assigned to bring them in...think Stockyard Channing and Scott Glenn

This season, has them tracking an extremely radical student union - the unholy mating of the crew from 12 Monkeys and The Bader Mein Hoff.

QuoteWere they happy with how it turned out?  Are they going to expect you to pull off a session like this every time a character has to die?

I think they were happy that I consulted them. Nah, they know this is a one off solution. The good thing is, we've decided to deal with issues that crop up on a case by case basis.

JimBob. You don't need lessons. I don't know...I'm watching your thread with immense curiosity. I don't have anything constructive to contribute except to reiterate that I think it's a people thing....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RJimBob. You don't need lessons. I don't know...I'm watching your thread with immense curiosity. I don't have anything constructive to contribute except to reiterate that I think it's a people thing....

Everyone needs lessons, because roleplaying itself is a "people thing", and there's an infinite variety of people. So we always have something more to learn. And GMing itself requires the most "people skills" of anyone in the game group, because the GM often finds themselves acting as a moderator at the player-payer and player-GM level, as well as at the player-character or character-character level. A game can survive a player or two being a bit clueless about people, or a player or two having a conflict; it's much harder for it to survive a GM being clueless, or a player-GM conflict.

You had a difficult situation, and handled it well (everyone ended up happy); I had a difficult situation, and handled it badly (everyone ended up miserable). So obviously I can learn from you!

Plus, you don't know if I'm a good GM not needing lessons until you play under me

Quote from: JimBobOzEveryone needs lessons, because roleplaying itself is a "people thing", and there's an infinite variety of people. So we always have something more to learn. And GMing itself requires the most "people skills" of anyone in the game group, because the GM often finds themselves acting as a moderator at the player-payer and player-GM level, as well as at the player-character or character-character level. A game can survive a player or two being a bit clueless about people, or a player or two having a conflict; it's much harder for it to survive a GM being clueless, or a player-GM conflict.

You had a difficult situation, and handled it well (everyone ended up happy); I had a difficult situation, and handled it badly (everyone ended up miserable). So obviously I can learn from you!

I get where you're going with this, but I really did not mean people skills. Now, it's obvious that there is/was some hostility between the player and you. IME people skills is only effective when folks actually enjoy each others company or are forced to cooperate, the former being friendship the latter various professional/working dynamics. Now off course people skills is also relevent to total strangers....the point being strangers have no feelings towards you one way or another.

The game...your game imploding , IMO was because you and this player did not get along. It may not have started this way, but somewhere along the way, something happened. No amount of people skills would have helped ,I think. You could have made Solomon like calls - which IMO you didn't - but still it would not have made much of a difference.

The things is, throughout this thread I kept on reminding folks, that this problem with my players was not something that we couldn't overcome. Our friendship was never in jeopardy because of the game. The people skills involved was just listening to folks and presenting interesting ideas that they might find workable. Now I'm sure, things would have been different if one or more of the players didn't like me for some reason.

So, people skills are great, but if the player and you are not getting on, it really would not make much of a difference.

Regards,
David R

That is all true. Nonetheless, people skills can, even if they don't solve a problem, anticipate or alleviate it. Some you see the shit coming and dodge it, or only go knee-deep instead of neck-deep.

And GMing skills, while they include people skills, also include other things like description ("white room combat problem"), sensing what'll be most fun and interesting for the group at this moment, and so on.

I still say I've a lot to learn about all those things

I finally got around to reading your follow up, and it sounds like it was a rockfest! :toast: :bow: Having a very short, definative borrowed-time type situation is something that I'll keep in mind in the future.

So do you think in time the whole story will come out about what transpired? I know if I was another player at the table it'd be driving me crazy too.  It's a fine, subjective line between cool mystery and irritatingly obtuse due to a lack of info.  With the later it feels sort of like a book that everyone tells me is great but that I've never gotten to read. But then I'm a curious type. *shrug*

P.S.  I've thought about the original question posted in this thread for a while now. I've come to the conclusion that I've never had/seen a "linchpin" in play. It has always worked out there was some redundancy of any vital information between characters within a short period of time OR there was a direct logical path for another character to gain the information. Do you see this often, or is it just the type of atmosphere in this genre with these characters where you have this kind of issolation of infomation?

Quote from: blakkieSo do you think in time the whole story will come out about what transpired?  

Yes, but I think it's something that should come out during the game between the players themselves.

QuoteDo you see this often, or is it just the type of atmosphere in this genre with these characters where you have this kind of issolation of infomation?

I think more of the latter. This player went out of his way to really engage with the setting. The other players were more interested at the task/goals at hand rather than going around poking their noses where it didn't belong

Regards,
David R