[Werewolf] Simulationism: Dreaming is cool, but what's with "The Right"?
David Berg:
Answering these questions in detail will incline me toward some of the other topics I wanna discuss beyond "The Right". So for now, I'll just give the short answers:
- The game continued for many more sessions, until Matt's metaplot had been resolved and the PCs had helped save the world from the Main Evil Threat.
- Elantrine came back as a wraith and haunted Shimmer. This mainly consisted of Meg saying annoying things to John at comedically-timed moments. Meg had already been wanting to go to sleep earlier, and took Elantrine's new condition as an excuse to be a part-time player.
- Shimmer was distrustful of Robertt for a little while. I think John sought out some private time between Shimmer and like-minded NPCs, but Matt didn't give him much to work with. Shimmer got over his distrust when Robert decided the Spiral Dancers actually were evil and had to go.
Ron Edwards:
Hi David,
Well, here's my thinking.
You've nailed down an excellent understanding of Simulationist play and other aspects of the Big Model relative to your experiences. That's a key goal of this forum and I hope it's fun to do.
Your experiences as you've related them are, as I see them, based on a fairly thin and unreliable connection between Social Contract and Creative Agenda, which means the CA itself is fairly feeble. That's not an indictment! (i) One of the reasons that I spend a lot of time working with your threads is that what you report parallels my own experiences 1985-1990. (ii) You and the others did in fact keep a CA alive for your game, which is a hell of a lot more than a lot of people in your position do or did.
What I'm saying is, I think you (reasonably, based on what you've done and seen) associate CA with the work it took to keep CA alive in a relatively unfavorable environment. I could baldly state that coherent play is, or can be, so effortless that no one would even imagine going through the sort of negotiation of "is it all right? is it all right" that you describe for that crucial scene in the Werewolf game. But why or how could you believe me? There's no point to making such a claim in the sense of an argument, although there is a point to letting you know that it's where I'm coming from.
What is this difficulty that I see in the Social Contract / Creative Agenda connection, in your game? Hell, I saw it every damned week I played during that five-year period I talked about, so it's not hard. It's the idea that "the point" of play is owned by a GM, and that everyone else, "players," are literally incapable of supporting it without constant corralling and supervision. The typical way this is accomplished is for the characters - no matter how much bad-assery they represent - to be unable to affect anything without approval, whether immediate (doing enough damage to kill someone) or scenario/story based (accomplishing a given goal). This leads to a particular non-productive tension between the mechanics, which are often dedicated to affecting things ("effectiveness") and the basic goals of play - which is why that misbegotten Golden Rule exists, stated as it is.
Anyway, I would prefer not to let this post turn into the basis for yet another long screed (I did a couple of those in the last two weeks, while developing a fever, a cold, and pneumonia simultaneously, and I'm tired!). I think I'd like this post to sit on its own and get processed over the very long term, rather than generate new questions at this point.
I really appreciate that you've begun this thread and followed up so beautifully on the discussion of a year ago. It's been a pleasure.
Best, Ron
David Berg:
Hi Ron,
Gack! Don't fuck around with pneumonia. I've been unpleasantly surprised by how hard it can be to shake that. Best of luck!
I think your summary of my play experiences is quite accurate, so abiding by your "no long screed based on this post!" request will be a piece of cake for me. Letting the implications simmer on the mental back-burner sounds about right.
I do, however, have a few vexing questions (re: terms definitions and design role) that relate to subjects covered earlier in this thread. Would you prefer that I start new threads to address those? Or do you think this thread is a fine place, but you'd like to bow out for the time being?
Thanks,
-David
David Berg:
Okay, after sitting on this for a while, I've decided to pursue my related design questions later, after some more revisions and playtests of my Lendrhald game. As for my terminology confusion, I've started a new thread on constructive denial here. I hope it'll be short and sweet, but we'll see.
Ron, thanks for your time and insights. Despite some "I want to understand faster!" frustrations on my end, this thread has been fun for me as well.
Ps,
-David
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page