As GM and player, do you think featuring lengthy scenes of pure PC interaction with no story stuff going on, like just hanging out around town, is worthwhile if the players get engaged into it?
Pic somewhat unrelated because mobile.
>>46086933
>if the players get engaged into it?
There's your answer. If the players are engaged, you're doing it right.
>>46086933
Yes? How is this even a question. It's a roleplaying game. If the players get engaged enough that they are entertained by simply acting as their characters and interacting with each other and having character developing moments, that's a good things.
>>46086933
I always enjoy the occasional inter-party chat during a campfire either before going to sleep or during your watch. Also, you can never go wrong hanging around in the town with your party once in a while to blow off steam.
>>46086933
Alright OP, let me tell you a bit of a secret. It's tantamount to heresy to some but your mind seems prepared to receive the truth.
The game is tertiary.
Your plot is secondary.
Interaction is primary.
The system you are playing is a way of quantifying wealth and ability in an abstract world. Strong, weak, rich, poor, all things broken down to specifics that though enjoyable to crunch don't really hold value outside of the individual PC's head. Most players couldn't list the first five things in the bag of the person next to them. It's a method of empowering or limiting as the story demands, but does not matter to a sensibly focused group in the long run. Something as small as buying a new weapon to receive better numbers should be thought of as a train to an interaction with the blacksmith or a potential quest.
>>46086933
Depends on the group, how much game time you have, and what you expect to get out of it.
If your players want to do, for example, some tacticool fightan, and you have a tight schedule, then lengthy interaction sequences might be detrimental to the game.
On the other hand, if your game is mainly chracter-driven then by all means, have all sorts of downtime feature prominently in a session.
Or alternate.
One thing you can do is set an online venue up, so the players can have their PCs engage and interact outside of your regular sessions.
If the players enjoy it of course it's worthwhile. Having fun is the reason we play these games in the first place.
You've made it as a storyteller when a conversation is just as engrossing as a fight.
>>46088317
On the other hand, you're utterly redundant if all engaging content happens between PCs.
>>46089077
thats why you gotta have good npc's the the pc's get attached to
>>46087119
You, you're amazing, keep it up.
>>46090780
Cannot stress this enough.
>>46086933
Yes of course. mostly it makes good character development and that is the most important thing. Because only developed characters make for a good story. Not necessearily a good-ending story (that is in the Characters Hands) but a good story.
This was great. At first. There were like 10 PCs and there were quite a few good inter-party friendships/rivalries/etc. Then, the GMs got lazy as all hell. That and the players ran out of things to say to one another. You can only say so many things before all the topics that aren't inane are exhausted. Then, the GM at the time realized he could just put something in front of us and distract the party with whatever. Like the time, for FOUR SESSIONS, we sat and ate dinner. Yeah, I love good roleplaying. I love interaction. I love character development. I went slightly loony after four eight hour long sessions of people just eating. There comes a point where you have to remember that you're playing something approaching a game and people want action.
I pointed this out to them and they said this: "I guess we should just skip to the last 30 minutes of Star Wars where Luke blows up the death star, hmm anon?" I replied "Point to the Star Wars episode where Luke sat at a dinner table for triple the length of Episode IV."
Then again, combat wasn't much better most sessions either began with a combat encounter that lasted 2-3ish rounds that we spent the rest of the time reacting to afterwards or a buildup to one that we ended right after. Between 8 PCs, the 2 GMPCs, the numerous pets of the party, and the hordes that fought us, combat took forever.
>>46092555
You wanted action. The rest of the group obviously didnt't.
>>46087119
This is simply one way of seeing it.
Some groups are there to play the game itself.
It's ok to be in it for the mechanics and rules too. They're not called GAMES for no reason.
If you just want to make a cool adventurer and go on missions to get xp and loot in D&D or Shadowrun, you're still playing the game as intended.
This varies from group to group and even person to person.
