rpg theory
xechnao:
Quote from: mcv on February 18, 2009, 05:30:46 AM
Simply exploring an open world freely doesn't in any way imply moral conflict or difficult choices. Nor vice versa. They can go together, but they don't need to, and often don't.
Yes, but from a first person perspective -and by this I mean that you actually make part of the world- you'll have to make the moral choices the world comes with. It is hard to imagine anyone during his course of life not having to come up with tough choices. Of course there are people more privileged economically but happiness is not guaranteed, rather it is a matter of ongoing struggle. It is even harder for the less privileged people and unfortunately for many more it is impossibly so -at least till today.
xechnao:
Hi Patrice
What if there was some strategic achievement meter used for tracking casual and permanent goals. Casual goals being an action zooming-in where it allows you to explore things, to learn new things while permanent goals those that more or less condition your true goal status or situation -staff like permanent "bonds" or "scars" -enemies, vendettas, love and things like that.
mcv:
Quote from: xechnao on February 18, 2009, 06:39:47 AM
Quote from: mcv on February 18, 2009, 05:30:46 AM
Simply exploring an open world freely doesn't in any way imply moral conflict or difficult choices. Nor vice versa. They can go together, but they don't need to, and often don't.
Yes, but from a first person perspective -and by this I mean that you actually make part of the world- you'll have to make the moral choices the world comes with. It is hard to imagine anyone during his course of life not having to come up with tough choices.
Of course tough choices can always happen, but as far as I've just come to understand it, that doesn't necessarily make it Narrativism. Otherwise I've never played anything other than Narrativist campaigns in my life.
But I'll agree that the seperation between sim and nar can be very fuzzy at times.
Vulpinoid:
Quote from: Patrice on February 18, 2009, 05:40:24 AM
Cadwallon had a few interesting experiments regarding Chararacters' agenda but it's drowned in a mechanism set that doesn't support it. It's like most of Cadwallon content, it's a patchwork. And a heartbreaker too and it's unplayable without home corrections. Everybody designed his own bit and everything didn't match when we sew it together. It's a game that wanted too much with too many constraints to allow it.
As one of the official English language playtesters for Cadwallon, I can tell you that there were a community of us who tried to make the system more streamlined and user friendly. You're right that it is a patchwork of systems and mechanisms, many of which seem to be in place purely for the aim of complicating things.
It could have been a great system in a great setting, if only someone had listened to the playtesters...or if it hadn't been designed by committee.
As for my earlier comment about "The Sims" being known as "The Nars", let me quote text from the back of the original box...
Quote
Create your Sims - Design their personalities, skills and appearance.
Control their lives - Guide your Sims' relationships and careers, for better or for worse.
Build their neighbourhood - Move your Sims into a pre-built house or build your own from the ground up.
Tell their story - Create Sim Web pages with the push of a button and share your Sims with the world.
Having played the game, it's much like a lot of other RPGs; you can play it for simulationism, or you can play it for narrativism. The bit about "Tell their Story" obviously implies that this was one of the design goals for the programmers.
In much the same way that people buy different sets of roleplaying rules to achieve different methods of play, different computer games can be used to engender different experiences of play. I don't think anyone will argue over that one.
The Sims had a dramatic impact on the computer game community, some even making the claim that it revolutionised the industry. In light of this, I still stand firm by my earlier comment that if D&D had used "The Sims" game model as a basis, it would have opened things up in much the same way for tabletop games, instead of cycling back to the origins of roleplaying games as we know them (developing from the context of miniatures and wargaming).
As for that last comment...
Quote from: mcv on February 18, 2009, 07:17:26 AM
Of course tough choices can always happen, but as far as I've just come to understand it, that doesn't necessarily make it Narrativism. Otherwise I've never played anything other than Narrativist campaigns in my life.
I think that every campaign that I've played in (and virtually every game that's been memorable) has had a story in it. That's one of the things that makes it memorable.
I certainly remember more session details from nights of roleplaying than I remember details about specific games of Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit or Pictionary. Whether the story has been pre-loaded or developed through play isn't the issue, but if you're saying that any level of story developed through play instantly refers to narrativism then I'd have to say that every roleplaying game I've participated in has had Narrativistic elements.
I wouldn't say that they've all been Narrativist, as some have favoured aspects of exploration (external or internal to the character), while others have favoured competitive play (between players and GM, or between players themselves).
V
mcv:
Quote from: Vulpinoid on February 18, 2009, 06:04:49 PM
I think that every campaign that I've played in (and virtually every game that's been memorable) has had a story in it. That's one of the things that makes it memorable.
But story by itself doesn't mean it's narrativism. From what I've been told on this forum, you can have strong, powerful stories in simulationist or gamist play. But usually those stories are either mostly predetermined by the GM, or they emerge by accident (which is amazingly cool when it happens). In Narrativism, you focus directly on creating a story through play by focusing directly on dramatic decisions and moral dilemmas.
Almost any kind of play will have some degree of dramatic choices, but only when those choices are more important than winning the fight or exploring the world or your character, only then is the game more narrativist than gamist or simulationist.
But I think most good games are a mix of the three. It's just a matter of where your primary focus lies and what the fortunatel by-products are.
At least, that's how I understand it so far. But this theory is still pretty new to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page