System Transforms Situation... And Situation Informs System?
jburneko:
I went and read Seth's posts about that "It Was a Mutual Decision" game. Interesting stuff coming from the guy who later went on to write "A Flower For Mara," a FAR more dangerous game than "It Was A Mutual Decision." But yes, what Seth was doing so were the players in that second game I played. Only, I had two, one on each side of the table, and neither came to the realization that Seth did. The attitude of, "Wererat? I want a wererat! Let's get a wererat going!" was present and unchecked the entire run of the game and was met with extreme disappointment when it didn't actually happen.
Furthermore, when I presented the idea that the people at the table need to buy into the couple as real people and care about the state of their relationship and make mechanical decisions from there rather than making mechanical decisions and seeing "what happens to the fiction," I was met with extreme resistance. The underlying principle seemed to be that if everyone at the table was that committed to the fiction from the outset then the rules were effectively unnecessary. Those people would have created an awesome story anyway, so why the rules?
Just the other day with regard to Spione I saw this comment, "All the awesome seemed to come from the people I was playing with, and not from the system." I've heard the same comment applied to Sorcerer and indeed underlies much, of my discussion about Sorcerer and how the elements are not just "ideas" that drive GM fiat. My notions about how "Giving" in Dogs in the Vineyard is this incredibly powerful thematic magic marker are met with raised eyebrows.
I'm tired of it. So, I want to develop a method of talking about that phenomenon of how the fiction feeds into mechanical decisions in an understandable and intelligent manner. I've tried giving it a term. I call it the Narrative Wall. That sometimes, given the state of the fiction, certain mechanical decisions simply make no sense. There are no "rules" stopping you from making those mechanical "moves" but your own commitment to the fiction won't let you. Why IS it that pushing the wererat button as often and as hard as you can to "see what will happen" makes the game suck? And why does that not prove the game is "broken"? Just what WAS going on systemically that made that first game sing so loud?
I'm curious because there's a next step question. How do you design and playtest the Narrative Wall? If a playtest group comes back and says the game sucked how do you distinguish between, the rules really aren't doing their job and they weren't relating to the fiction properly to allow the rules to do their job?
Jesse
Jesse
Callan S.:
Hi Jesse,
It's funny - I agree with your original post, right until the last paragraph where you take a complete right hand turn to me. Or perhaps I'm taking a right hand turn. Because the majority of roleplayers I've talked to on forums seem to have their narrative wall reinforced by most roleplay games. Roleplay games have actually eroded my narrative wall over the years. If there's a button here where I can give and a button over there where I can pull the trigger of the gun in the dogs mouth, I might feel I have to give...but why??? The presence of the trigger pulling button QUESTIONS that feeling. That extra button means I cannot pretend to myself I was only ever going down one path - that extra button is a different path I could choose. And in being able to choose it, I have to question why I did not? Why? The multiple choices system gives me make me question the choices I *feel* I must take. And questioning the narrative wall, erodes it. Note: I see this as a philisophical feature of roleplay games, not a bug.
Strangely you seem to be on the other side (or I'm on the other side - either way) and your line "Why IS it that pushing the wererat button as often and as hard as you can to "see what will happen" makes the game suck?" seems to reinforce the narrative wall. The assertion being "If the game sucks without a narrative wall, then the narrative wall must exist and be important!"
So it's strange - I mostly agree with you, I think, because the people you talk about are neither interested in narrative wall eroding introspection, nor are they interested in reinforcing a narrative wall. Although I'm interested in eroding narrative walls, I'm still interested in walls and so essentially agree with you! These people have no interest in narrative walls at all. Funny parallel weve got going on there!?
jburneko:
Callan,
I think what you're getting at is that the system in Dogs in the Vineyard makes it *safe* socially to pull the trigger. The uniformity of the mechanics means I can pull the trigger and it isn't just an automatic kill. I have options with what dice I Raise with and the player has options with what to See with and even taking d10s in fallout isn't very likely to kill you outright. There are choices and those choices are out in the open.
That to me though strengthens the narrative wall, not erodes it. I know I can pull the trigger will full commitment if I want to. I'm not backing down because the mechanics will screw up someones fun with an auto kill or whatever. I've done that in the past with other games. I've been in a situation where I would have liked to have played the character and situation more ruthlessly but didn't because I was affraid the mechanics would fuck over the player too badly. But that to me only socially strengthens the decision to back off. The players know I don't have to. It's clear that my choice is genuine role-playing of the lieutenant and not just the GM protecting them, "in case".
Jesse
Marshall Burns:
Jesse,
Urrrg... That's a touchy topic for me, right there. I think that there are "right" ways to create a character, and that there are "wrong" ways. The "right" ways are a) to create a character, in terms of actual, y'know, character, and then use the Techniques provided by the game to describe (Express) him, or b) to take a not-entirely predictable result that the System gives you (random chargen, lifepaths, etc.) and then think of what character in terms of actual, y'know, character, is described (Expressed) by that data. The wrong ways are everything else. Those guys that say things like "Being Mean is what the system rewards me for"? Punch 'em in the face, as far as I'm concerned.
(Yes, if you're playing Gamist, you should almost certainly write the character for effectiveness, but if you aren't also thinking about him in terms of actual character then I will punch your face refuse to play with you. I follow the way of the Disco Samurai.)
But, of course, that's my personal karma, and I don't expect anyone else to agree to it, unless we're going to be playing together.
I'm still wrestling with a way to get this Expression thing out in a coherent form. I think it's something that most roleplayers understand on a non-verbal level, but I sure as hell want to investigate it. Problem is it's an iceberg -- I see it's peak all over the place, but there's a hell of a lot underneath that.
In the mean time, there's this thread I started over on SG that is grounded in my Expression theory:
Story Made Simple
See in particular the section labeled "Character Techniques," and Eldir's post towards the bottom, where he insightfully picks up on what I'm about to (try to) say next.
-Marshall
Marshall Burns:
(shit, hit the button too soon; Jesse, in case it's unclear, I was responding directly to your response to the KPFS thing)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page