Cues

Knowing when it’s your turn to speak. It’s a skill we all learned, but when? And did we all learn it the same way?

I’ve been watching some actual play videos, and thinking about my own roll20 campaign, and face to face games, and I realise that everyone has their own rules for conversation. In some cases it all works out, but in others, we have people interrupting each other, talking for longer than necessary, or not speaking at all. The lack of visual cues in my online (voice only) game probably makes this worse.

A rules system for speaking

This reminds me of a time when I ran a session of Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd edition. There were eight players on that fateful Saturday morning, and they all wanted to do stuff. So I had them roll initiative, not for the characters to do stuff, but for the players to be allowed to speak! I got through that session, and never ran such a big one again. But last weekend I was a player in a session of D&D 5th edition, with eight players, and I remembered it.

Since I’m getting ready to run a game of Deadlands, I’ve been thinking of incorporating a poker deck into a role playing game. Here’s what I’m thinking of doing.

At the start of the session, deal a poker hand to each player, including the game master. That’s five cards from a standard fifty two card deck. Assuming each player knows how to play poker, they can then take turns stating what hand they have (full house, two pairs etc). Whoever has the best hand gets to open the session, by announcing what their character does, or by speaking in character. It’s up to the other players to then follow their lead, taking cues from the ideas initiated by the opening player. Assuming this leads to some interesting action or dialogue, everyone should be happy. At some point though, another player will want to take the initiative and start a new thread of the story, rather than follow someone else’s lead. They can take over by offering a ‘raise.’ Now each player must ‘burn’ one of their cards, and then announce their new hand (a pair, three of a kind, a straight). Whoever has the best hand gets to announce some new aspect of the story, and the other players follow their lead again. So a session would consist of five segments, with each one potentially led by a different player.

Why not just take turns?

The idea of raising the stakes is something that could make this system more than just the turn order. As the session goes on, the hazards and challenges will get harder as the pot gets bigger. The rewards can also increase, assuming the players succeed at whatever they are trying to do.

What if the same player keeps getting the best hand?

Then they keep leading the story. If they were the GM you would probably accept that as normal. If it’s another player, and they are generating a good story, then that’s good too. Also, if a player has ‘run out of steam’ they don’t need to declare what hand they have, they can just let another player take over.

What if I don’t like letting others lead the story?

If it’s the particular people you tried this system with, then you need to find a group that suits you better. If it’s all people, ever, then you need to examine why you play this sort of game. Using another system may allow you to enjoy a game in spite of the people you play with, but what’s the point of that? Whether the game is fluffy narrativism or crunchy hack & slash, it’s a social game. If you find out you don’t like the input of one of the players, you should not keep playing with them.