[Lacuna] OK so I tried it... [SPOILER ALERT]
JC:
Quote from: Danny_K on January 19, 2008, 09:03:42 PM
Very brief note: Ron is right about narrating outcomes. I've read the rules literally a dozen times -- how did I make such a basic mistake?
you mean about who narrates outcomes?
I'm reading the rules right now, and nowhere does it state that Control narrates the outcomes of the rolls
better yet, it states that the player states his intent, and succeeds if he rolls 11+
what keeps a player from saying "I want to roll Instinct/Intuition to spot Senior Agent Chambers spying on us from the shadows"?
Ron Edwards:
H'mmm, that's kind of an odd response.
JC, I posted in this thread to agree with you about how GMing Lacuna is a lot of work. I'm not sure why you're posting to argue about this other issue, and I don't see an immediate reason to debate with you about it. No one's saying "you played wrong!" or anything like that. You've allowed as how the game can be played the way I described, and I did not plan on pushing you farther than you want to go about that.
If it's really important to you, please let me know why that is, and maybe we can discuss it. But it shouldn't be about "argue with Ron so I don't look stupid," or anything like that. People can read the game for themselves and decide whether I'm right about what I posted, or wrong, and it doesn't reflect badly on you either way.
Best, Ron
JC:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 20, 2008, 02:35:49 PM
H'mmm, that's kind of an odd response.
JC, I posted in this thread to agree with you about how GMing Lacuna is a lot of work. I'm not sure why you're posting to argue about this other issue, and I don't see an immediate reason to debate with you about it. No one's saying "you played wrong!" or anything like that. You've allowed as how the game can be played the way I described, and I did not plan on pushing you farther than you want to go about that.
If it's really important to you, please let me know why that is, and maybe we can discuss it. But it shouldn't be about "argue with Ron so I don't look stupid," or anything like that. People can read the game for themselves and decide whether I'm right about what I posted, or wrong, and it doesn't reflect badly on you either way.
Best, Ron
oh, hey, I certainly didn't mean to argue for argument's sake
sorry if it looks that way
let me come back in a little while and see if I can post a better answer
Ron Edwards:
Hey, I read over my post again, and it's true, I wrote really didactically - "it is this and it is that," and so on. So I'll cool my own jets too and post better as we continue.
Best, Ron
JC:
OK, let's see if I can express myself a little more clearly this time around...
Quote from: Ron Edwards on January 20, 2008, 02:35:49 PM
JC, I posted in this thread to agree with you about how GMing Lacuna is a lot of work. I'm not sure why you're posting to argue about this other issue, and I don't see an immediate reason to debate with you about it. No one's saying "you played wrong!" or anything like that. You've allowed as how the game can be played the way I described, and I did not plan on pushing you farther than you want to go about that.
If it's really important to you, please let me know why that is, and maybe we can discuss it. But it shouldn't be about "argue with Ron so I don't look stupid," or anything like that. People can read the game for themselves and decide whether I'm right about what I posted, or wrong, and it doesn't reflect badly on you either way.
I think there may be a misunderstanding here
we both agree that, if the GM has to come up with the back-story by himself, either before or during play, Lacuna is a lot of work
and yes, I was wrong to believe that all Forge-games were necessarily light on GM-prep
the reason I'm "arguing", is that I think that Lacuna allows for a mode of play where both GM and players contribute to the back-story during the game
true, there's nothing in the rules to support this, but they also don't state the opposite
so why not?
I'd be glad to talk about this, since we seem to disagree
and the reason it's important to me is that I believe that, when played like this, Lacuna becomes a lot less work for the GM
then, if we can agree that Lacuna can be played like this, I'd like to talk about the possibility of playing the game with a "mixed" group: some players contributing to the back-story, and others not
now, about Nar being different from "everyone can contribute to the back-story"
I think the difference is clearer to me now
I must confess I have a hard time wrapping my head around a Sim game where the players have authority over the back-story, but if you say it can be done, I believe you
out of curiosity, could you provide an example, or a link or something?
or should I just look up Dead of Night?
finally, on a related topic: if players can't contribute to the back-story, how does Lacuna facilitate Nar?
the only thing I see are the Static rules, that make characters choose whether to stick with an incompetent or even hostile Company
(and I see that Nar does not equate "players contribute to back-story", but "players contribute to back-story on a succesful roll" does seem to me like a Nar-facilitating rule)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page