[3:16] Way Too Easy Or Just Got the Rules Wrong?
gsoylent:
I referred to the "Star Trek log" scene as particularly effective because it seemed like the perfect marriage between story fluff - those things the contribute towards atmosphere, that allow characters to express their individuality and that help scratch the creative itch - and the game proper in which the things players do materially contribute towards a final victory (or defeat).
Now one could just as easily play Space Hulk, and I guess it's a fine game, but it doesn't really do the story stuff fluff. Or you could play something like Call of Cthulhu which is rich on story fluff but in which, at least the times I played it, most of the stuff the characters do turns out to be just filler, just a way of passing time until the big final ritual which you traditional disrupt with tons of dynamite anyway.
3:16 interests me because it seems as to me as an attempt to bring the two strands together. If I've read it right, you can stage in 3:16 as crazy and colourful a scene you want but because in the end it boils down to a finite number of Threat Tokens, these scenes are not just filler, never just coolness for coolness sake. The Strength and Weakness also would appear to work on this same principle - character defining moments underpinned by a game altering move. That is how I hope it will work (still only played in once so far).
The worse case scenario for me is if 3:16 ends up working like Japanese video game, with a mixture of arcade action sequences followed by a long cut scenes which have no bearing on anything and drive the player to frantically hit the Escape key in the hope skipping past it quickly.
As for the PvP and military satire aspects you describe as being central of the game, honestly, I didn't really get that. I am not saying it isn't there, but all I registered was a healthy dose of black humour.
Lance D. Allen:
PvP isn't necessary. Neither is Military Satire.
Both are options that are encouraged by the game.
The games I've run have all been for soldiers. I've played military satire. They've played it straight. In some ways, I think that will begin to tell in time. The satire will become closer to home, less fantastical Gulliver's Travels-style satire, and more of the darker side of what we see every day.
Eventually if your group allows the game to grow serious, the humor will get blacker, and the player characters will begin to turn on each other. My second group did it in all three sessions we've played. No players have killed each other yet, but it's come down to it. The scariest part is that I didn't prompt it at ALL. I try to go into 3:16 with relatively blind players, so that anything that happens is emergent, not based on stories of what has happened in previous games.
Ron Edwards:
Hey Lance,
That post reads to me as if you're saying "either way works," but as I see it, its content agrees with my point. The game itself is structured such that black humor arises, especially directed toward the military as such. Playing it as a kind of level-up kill-bugs video game opens a door to that more central effect; I'm pretty sure that if the video-funsy approach stayed central, various rules and procedures would probably get shifted to accomodate it.
I don't want to mis-read your post, so check me on this: I think you're also distinguishing between over-the-top, in-your-face, GM-directed satire vs. the lurking, emergent, perhaps ultimately more gut-punching satire. If so, then I totally agree. I'm thinking that in my next game, I'll probably start with less overt/surreal satire on my part, as there's little need to front-load it.
Best, Ron
Lance D. Allen:
It's been a week of long nights since I wrote that, but yes I think I was basically thinking what you're saying. More to the point, nothing you've just said disagrees with anything I've observed about the game.
I do think the GM has the responsibility to play the game the way his players are. If the players are consistently playing it as meaningless shoot-em-up fun, then he shouldn't try to force theme on them. Let it happen. I was playing up the satire on ship, but I'd started to make it more serious. I figure, why can't the officer be a good officer? Once SGT Horton's character made LT, The old officer got moved away, and he met the CO. The CO is a mid-level functionary who doesn't question what happens to the soldiers because at least it's not him. He'll try to get LT Sam into the good-ol'-boy club, but I think Sam may play his own game. On the flip-side, he did order his troopers to wipe out the corrupted troopers even after he realized that they were troopers just like him, rather than possessed corpses. They were 'corrupt' because they didn't kill off the peaceful alien life. I think that may end up becoming telling, one way or the other, if we get a chance to continue.
So, in short: Don't force it. Play it straight. It'll happen if the group is capable of making it happen.
Gregor Hutton:
Thanks for that Lance and Ron. I'm in total agreement.
I remember when I did the 24-hour version and Roger panned me for "...[making] (in my opinion) the classic error of Narrative games. It answers the Premise. It tells you what conclusion to reach." I don't think it does that at all.
It does make you have to answer it yourself at some point if you engage with your characters and the game, and it's not as simple as the GM forcing it out there. It builds. And that, in my book, is a good thing.
For me, I'm not sure I know the answer but I want to find out.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page