Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Simon Kamber, May 31, 2005, 02:22:26 PM
QuoteHere's a piece of text from Dogs in the Vineyard: Also, occasionally, your character will get killed. The conflict resolution rules will keep it from being pointless or arbitrary: it'll happen only when you've chosen to stake your character's life on something. Staking your character's life means risking it, is all.In fiction, You never die for something you haven't staked your life on.
Quote from: Simon KamberI believe that even though narrativistic games like DitV are very open and unrestricted in nature, there's still some places where the lives of player characters simply should not be put on the line. Mainly when it happens before there's been a buildup for it.
Quote from: TonyLBI could totally see a Narrativist game where, the moment your character got killed, you were booted out of the room. That would be cool. You could make real statements with that.
QuoteNarrativism isn't about being nice or fair or inclusive. It's about Story Now.Now if you want to be nice or fair or inclusive as well then just say so. That sounds like a worthy goal. But it's got nothing to do with Narrativism.
Quote from: Eero TuovinenI personally think that taking something like character death as a theoretical issue vis a vis a creative agenda is a red herring. The best that can be said is that in some situations it works, in some it doesn't. It all depends on the game situation. I could just as easily claim that, say, stealing equipment is something that never works for a narrativist game. And I'd be wrong. I fail to see how character death is different, expect that the techniques that make it work are much rarer.
Quote from: LumpleySo here are two points for you:(...)
Quote from: TonyLBEero: I could totally see a Narrativist game where, the moment your character got killed, you were booted out of the room. That would be cool. You could make real statements with that.
Quote from: Eero TuovinenAnd I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't consider involuntary death with the boot-out functional narrativism, would you?
Quote from: TonyLBQuote from: Eero TuovinenAnd I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't consider involuntary death with the boot-out functional narrativism, would you?I don't see why it wouldn't be. Noon raises a valid point that the player investment probably doesn't increase the functionality of the system vis-a-vis Narrativism. But I also don't see how it reduces its functionality. As a technique it's probably Narrativism-neutral.
QuoteSo if the game was narrativist-encouraging without the "you die, you walk" rule, it will still be narrativist-encouraging with it. Why wouldn't it?
Quote from: lumpleySo here are two points for you:1. Sometimes it's fun and good for your PC to be a supporting character, not a protagonist. Thus, yes, prey to all the crap that befalls supporting characters, including random death.2. Sometimes, then, it's also fun and good to not know whether your PC is a supporting character until some moment of truth. In fact further: to not get to choose yourself whether your PC is a protagonist or a supporting character, to let the events of the game's fiction choose. Your PC's random death may well be just such a moment.There's no reason in the world why any gamer would recognize the truth of these two points out of hand. They're hard won. Having a gamer-like relationship with your PC makes them seem impossible, doesn't it?