I hate compromises
Filip Luszczyk:
Frank,
Quote
Probably I’m not taking the discussion down a constructive lane, so I’ll back off for now. If anybody’s interested, you might check out my thread [Liquid] Well, I just rolled the dice for show, in which a very similar discussion came up between Callan and me.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure whether it's potentially constructive or not.
The way you interpret my account is perplexing. It seems like what you label as "role-playing" might be an entirely different activity that just can't be discussed in the same categories productively. I find it a stumbling block in many discussions. Note: I don't think "we have very, very different concepts of role-playing". The way you say it, it sounds as if we had very, very different concepts of the same thing. I believe this might not be the case. I believe it might not be the same thing in the first place. We can't have even remotely the same concept of it, consequently. If anything, we might have very, very different concepts of "game".
And yet, at the same time, those entirely different activities are clearly rooted in the same product base. How come?
I recognize your AP. I've read your account back when you posted it. I've been in games exactly like that, it's perfectly clear to me. I wouldn't exactly describe the experience as fun. In those games, the experience always felt severly impoverished. So, back when you posted that AP, I've read it and never returned to it again. It's only now that I've read the entire thread.
What strikes me is the PTA problem described there. Every now and then, I see people posting about it. I don't recognize that problem at all! I've been in five games of PTA, and I've never encountered it. Even in games that didn't work, that particular problem was never present!
Or so it seems. That problem appears impossible to me. Here's why.
In PTA games I played, an average session lasted 3-4 hours. Sometimes longer. Four hours is a pretty adequate average session time in PTA, I believe?
If the problem applies, I don't see how an average session could last for longer than 30-40 minutes. Perhaps if people taaalk veeery slooowly? PTA has minimal mechanics. If people don't play with fictional detail, what are they playing with, then? What fills up the rest of that terribly dysfunctional session time?
Or, if the problem applies, and it's my PTA that suffers from the lack of fictional detail, then how long would an average functional session last? Ten hours?
So, I don't know what the problem is all about. I don't know this problem.
Only, whenever you say "fictional detail", I don't really know what you mean. I recognize the words, I know their meaning. But I don't know what's in your head when you say that! Perhaps your "fictional detail" is something entirely different than my "fictional detail"? Consequently, perhaps you'd characterize my actual play discourse as lacking in fictional detail, and vice versa?
Those PTA games I've played. The first one fizzled after the pilot episode. The other player just couldn't wrap his head around the very basics of the system, like scene requests. It was like that in everything we tried to play with the guy, so we didn't play long together. The second time, it fizzled after the pilot episode again. This time, not enough buy-in; we applied the prep procedure, we also applied plenty of advice from the forums, and we came up with a mediocre show regardless. The third time, I've run the game, and we completed the series. It was as fiction rich as our games those days used to get. Fiction-wise, it was awesome! Only, gameplay felt impoverished. There's an actual play report from that game.
Now, the fourth and the fifth time, technically it was no longer PTA. It was our PTA Hack. Only very basic rules remained, like scene structure, Fanmail and resolution mechanics. We got rid of the Producer. We revised and expanded prep procedure greatly. Most importantly, we formalized lots of the procedurally vague stuff, e.g. stakes negotiation. I'm sure our written procedure included plenty of mental shortcuts and deeply integrated assumptions, but for our purposes, that was sufficient. The effect? Our overall investment was much stronger. Story was much stronger. Fiction was much stronger, too. But first and foremost, gameplay was much stronger, and it no longer felt so impoverished.
And you know what? Trying to discuss those changes outside my immediate gaming environment, I've been accused of those things that you complain about. And it made no sense whatsoever. Apparently, our formalization of the stakes setting process should have broken the game and made it un-fun for us (because of something Ron said about stakes once, on some fancy forum). It was supposed to diminish fictional detail, or something like that, while the effect we witnessed in play was exactly the opposite: our focus on detail became much stronger. As I see it, PTA played by the book sucks; we fixed the game.
Quote
I don’t really feel I understand what you get out of this sort of play.
Here's what I get out of this sort of play.
Out of Burning Empires, I get frustration. I get nothing at all out of it. That's why I left the game, played some 4e and Capes instead. When I'm not getting anything out of the game, and it doesn't seem I can get anything worth the trouble, I don't play the game. I move on. However, the rest of that group was apparently getting something out of that game, enough to grit their teeth and stay in the campaign for six months despite their frustration with all sorts of stuff. I don't really understand what that was.
Out of Mouse Guard, I consistently get a strong sense of tension and accomplishment. At some point around the fifth or sixth session, I also started getting the sense of powerful dramatic resolutions, somewhat similar to watching a good movie. There was also some sense of the in-game reality solidifying, a bit like what I used to get playing ADOM, but I wouldn't return to the game fot this alone.
Out of those games that were like your Liquid example, I was getting very little, if anything. For instance, I recall this convention game of Crystalicum run by a relatively accomplished rpg scenario writer, perhaps five or six years ago. It was exactly like that session you describe in your AP. The game felt so bland that for me, the only way not to leave the table was to entertain myself with some forced acting and humor. The guy was totally ruining my fun since the very beginning. However, it seems the reverse was not true. After the session I was praised for my excellent role-playing (read: acting). It was baffling. I wouldn't exactly characterize talking in a funny voice and applying the single mannerism I came up with to every encountered situation as fun. More like "funny". Gameplay itself felt severly impoverished, though, or rather non-existent.
Actually, I wouldn't characterize that experience as "game" in the first place. It felt like some sort of storytelling/acting exercise.
By the way, I've run a game for that GM once. Perhaps an hour into the session, it fizzled. The scene screamed "social conflict" to me, so I invoked the resolution procedure. When I asked the guy what he wants to get out of the scene, his answer was: "Uh, I just want to throw some entertaining one-liners". A few minutes later he suddenly found some real-life excuse to politely retreat from the game. We never played together again.
So, see, I feel that I understand what sort of gaming you describe, even though I don't feel I understand what you get out of it. However, I'm not convinced that you understand the sort of gaming that I'm describing, never mind what I get out of it.
Here's my AP from Yuuyake Koyake. It's longish and relatively detailed, as it happens to be with most my reports, so it might be hard to stomach. However, it describes a mood heavy game played with some of those BE/MG players. Probably something relatively close to that Liquid AP of yours. It also describes my frustration with the impoverished gameplay. Too bad the only poster who responded seemed to be focusing on tangentials.
Callan S.:
I don't think it's different cultures in different countries, except perhaps in how some are more insulated from others cultural trends. I think it's cultures within the roleplay hobby, what gets passed onto new people when they are introduced.
I think some people find the really oomphy part of play is when they come to a point of compromise and the game stops absolutely until they do. And they love this crunch moment, do or die and that everyone must come together to get it working, or something like that. Having a 'default' would remove what they game for entirely. Them honing their group dynamics to work out a compromise consistently IS play, for them. That's where the game of it is, for them. Them trying to work on group dynamics fixing is like someone else trying to help you with your chess strategies. The strategy of play is all centered in group dynamics management.
Filip Luszczyk:
Callan,
I don't know. I don't quite see how this sort of social crunch aligns with the mechanical crunch for those people. In games like BE or MG specifically, there's quite an excessive amount of the latter. It feels strikingly illusory. It sounds like very basic and sketchy procedures would do. Why have so elaborate procedures for everything else?
Judd,
Quote
You talk about the ambiguous outcomes as if they are bad things and to me, they are what makes DoW fun.
It's not about outcomes. Outcomes are fine. Those outcome examples you enumerate later in the thread - we had outcomes like that in various games, with various methods of resolution.
It's about the process of getting there. My problem is all about that moment between knowing the mechanical result of the mini-game and knowing the final outcome. It's like a grain of sand in the cogs of an otherwise well-working machine.
Quote
That is like a group complaining because they lost hit points in a battle. If their arguments lost Body of Argument, they have to compromise.
I don't think it's similar.
For instance, this is what happens when you've lost hit points in battle. It's a very concrete, immediate and well defined effect. If you lose hit points in battle, you have to deal with it. No buts.
A few weeks ago, in preparation for that upcoming Jihad campaign, I've tested BW's fight rules with a friend. Before that, I've been afraid those rules might prove needlessly complex, like stuff I've seen in BE. As it turns out, the rules were very fun. I definitely like them more than those abstract conflicts in Mouse Guard. I like it how the scripting and resolution was so very graphical. After one or two volleys, looking at the script alone was enough to know what was going on, and on a pretty detailed level. Combatants move around, trying to position optimally for their weapons, adjust their stances, there's some pushing and disarming and hitting the opponent with the hilt. All sorts of fighty things can happen. There's a pretty slick procedure for figuring out where you hit your opponent. We are instructed how to check whether the blow gets deflected by armor, how badly it harms the combatant and how it affects his morale.
It's all very playable, and it's all in the game. Options and immediate outcomes to deal with. No buts.
This is what happens when you lose hit points in a battle.
With compromises, there's this out of game moment when I have to come up with some numbers and tell you how many hit points you should deduct from your total. Also, the scale is vague and how we fought doesn't translate to hit points loss, it only inspires us in our assessment. For me 5 hit points sounds adequate, but for you, it's way too much. "Now come on, you've been stabbed five times, that should be just about right! Why do you think being stabbed consecutively in the same body part shouldn't count?"
Daniel B:
I know I'm not a smart guy, so 85% of this thread has gone WAY over my head. However, I have a tiny suggestion.. maybe you'll find it useful.
Filip, this issue is so much larger than RPGs. Getting a bunch of vastly different people with vastly different opinions to reach an agreement is plain human psychology. I know you posted the thread here because you're interested in solutions as they relate to RPGs, but I find getting to the heart of the issue gives me a much clearer perspective. Doing your own research on the subject online or at a library might spark some inspiration on what you can do with Mouse Guard. I'm planning to do precisely the same thing, incorporating leadership skill-training and team-building structures into the GM's guide for my own game, so that the guy running the show will be subtly nudged towards running a better show, more often.
That said, this is not an attempt to shut the thread down. As much trouble as I'm having following it, it is interesting.
Callan S.:
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on March 08, 2010, 09:37:51 PM
I don't know. I don't quite see how this sort of social crunch aligns with the mechanical crunch for those people. In games like BE or MG specifically, there's quite an excessive amount of the latter. It feels strikingly illusory. It sounds like very basic and sketchy procedures would do. Why have so elaborate procedures for everything else?
Because those rules, and whether they are followed, and how much, and how the wording is interpreted, and how much we follow what rules Jack wants now cause we followed what rules Jill wanted before...it is the actual chips, points and currency of the social dynamics game. The needlessly baroque rules allow there to be more social dynamics currency.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page