I hate compromises
Callan S.:
Yes, but from my perspective there's an error going on, shown in how it goes from 'it can be made into a fun game' into 'It is a whole set of fun that people can try to support' all too easily. Not to mention how the last sentence to me implies that if there isn't any fun, it's not because the game isn't a set of fun, it's because people aren't supporting it (ie, it gets punted to the group dynamic level rather than accepting it's the mechanics that have failed, not the group) - when actually the game just isn't fun.
The mutation from treating something as 'can be made fun' to 'is fun/has always been fun' is something I've seen repeated through almost all roleplay/gamer culture. I'd support the notion it can be made fun, except it always seems to mutate all too rapidly into 'it IS a set of fun, already' or suchlike. It mutated in your own post in the space of three sentences.
It's terrible in this context too, not just other contexts.
In terms of why I've stuck around despite traditional RPG's, is that I've pretty much treated 99% of trad sessions as playtests, trying to fish out the good components that are there, or that get spontaniously invented at the table. I haven't stuck around because there is a whole set of fun that already exists and that people just need to support it. For whatever worth my own account is.
JoyWriter:
Quote from: Callan S. on March 12, 2010, 02:52:14 PM
Yes, but from my perspective there's an error going on, shown in how it goes from 'it can be made into a fun game' into 'It is a whole set of fun that people can try to support' all too easily.
I'm using the word "it" to refer to two different things in that last post (the car that becomes a game, and then the potential), the implication you expect is not one I'm pushing!
Just because something crap can be made good, doesn't mean I blame someone for not doing it. It's a skill, and anyway, the "support" I was referring to was from the game designer, setting up the rules structure so it brings out the best of that dynamic, obstructs some of the worst of it, contextualises it appropriately and helps people get on board. Isn't "rules support" part of forge-speak?
Making the best the default and slapping people if they don't hit it first time is not what I do, I try to expect little but encourage much. And I'd rather be good (and learning) at an easier task than floundering with a hard one, so I love it when the game's designer puts help in or breaks a problem up in a good way, so I can get a grip on it and move up in skill while enjoying myself.
In short, I'm with you man, just trying to show something cool.
Filip Luszczyk:
Callan,
Quote
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.
Oh.
It still feels out of game for me, though. That social game, it's something we do with entire games, before we agree to play one in the first place. It's an inconvenient necessity, a prerequisite to get any gaming at all. While I'm aware that a substantial portion of gamers play for primarily social reasons, the game itself providing a mere pretext to gather and engage in their social games, packaging this sort of experience under the guise of a ruleset doesn't seem quite right to me.
Actually, this might be the source of that sense of disconnect I often get, like there were two (or possibly more) entirely different and fundamentally incompatible categories of activities, rather than just modes of play, rooted in the same product base.
I think a lot of my dissatisfaction with games in general stemmed from how upon closer examination it often turned out those products weren't exactly what the cover seemed to promise, even though various bits and pieces were perfectly fine on their own. Like, for instance, if one examines the rules of a traditional game thoroughly enough, only the GM remains. Normally, before commiting to a system, I try to identify rules that effectively grant a single player complete or near complete control over the game. Looks like I should be equally careful about rules that push too much crucial stuff to group consensus.
James,
Quote
Hi Filip. I just wanted to focus for a sec on something concrete in the form of your example. Perhaps your group was not up for the twist because it wasn't actually a compromise. They don't get the info. That's cool, but the twist feels like a dead end. The knife thrown wasn't a compromise unless it represents a new avenue for investigation. If you had said something like "You don't get the info because he's killed by knife from somewhere. A very distinctive knife inscribed with the blacksmith's symbol." Perhaps they would have went for it. They didn't get what they were after, but they did get something.
Also, if they lost, then the bartender had to get what he wanted. Did he, in fact, prove that the Guard was oppressive?
Note that interrogating the bartender was the last thing we did that session. That compromise would have confirmed the agents were still somewhere near, active and dangerous, prompting further investigation in the next mission. None of the other options suggested represented a better avenue for investigation, anyway. As for the bartender's goal, of course he would get what he wanted. We'd be found with his dead body on the floor, all evidence pointing at us.
But that's not the point. Fiction is flexible, it can accomodate all sorts of outcomes, it could progress from that point like from any other. The point is, the rules asked me to come up with a twist, so I came up with something adequate enough that I felt really enthusiastic about. However, the same rules allowed others to dismiss it just like that. I guess I'd rather have it as part of my stakes in that conflict and lose it. At least I'd know what I fight for up front. What happened intrinsically wasn't better than the GM nodding wisely, pretending to look at my roll, and making shit up on the spot in a traditional game. Funny how not so very long ago, I've seen Burning Stuff praised for how those games protect players from various trad GM tricks with open stakes, let it ride, advancement and all.
Frank,
Quote
A “fictional detail”, to me, would be for example: “There is snow on the roofs and icicles on the windows.” Or: “She is wearing an elaborate red gown, sexy in a classy way.” Or: “He is standing by the door. You are standing in the corner.” Or: “The massive gurgle of a Corvette V8.” Or: “I am trembling with shame and anger.” My initial thought was that a lack of such details might make it hard for your group to find something that feels “right” as a compromise.
Well, we have plenty enough of details like that in our games. Unless in actual play you make those much more wordy - I've seen people calling it poor narration when the GM didn't describe falling snow for thirty minutes straight. Either way, it's still a matter of how much detail makes enough detail and how much constitutes a lack of it. I don't feel such details are particularly crucial to our outcomes in general; adding to the mood is more like it. I'm not even sure how some of those example details could affect resolution meaningfully, though that's rather hard to envision without considering it in terms of a specific system.
Quote
I also see how, in this thread, you are not reacting well to criticism and people questioning your assumptions. Criticism and the questioning of assumptions are vital to productive discourse and are expected at the Forge. Your defensiveness is understandable, but it is also inappropriate and frankly, doesn’t make me much inclined to continue this discussion. The way you dismiss games and designers because you were frustrated by those games, or claim you “fixed” a game, may not be meant nearly as pretentious as it comes across to me, and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Heh, in this thread, I see many people going defensive and not reacting well to criticism or questioning their assumptions. Now, while I found some things in yours or Raven's posts somewhat irritating, I've also found them productive. Those made me think about various more or less related stuff, at the very least, even though so far, the discussion is largely reinforcing my initial opinions. However, when it comes to approaching the thread from the angle of dealing with a complaining customer or the like, I can only dismiss those posts as completely unproductive. Now, no benefit of the doubt is needed: if something I say comes across as too pretensious or anything to you, I suggest not engaging in the discussion at all might prove better for both of us. Please consider for a moment how some of those posts here might be coming across to me (hint: pretensious sounds like quite an accurate word).
Callan S.:
Filip, I'm just nodding with you through your post, is all I can say! That it doesn't feel quite right - I agree! Particularly the 'only the GM remains' - rather poetic way to describe it too! I had a long, long thread on story games once where I tried to explain that rule zero nukes all other rules and makes them effectively moot/non existant. No one seemed to accept it because they'd say only a jerk GM would do that - again, it gets punted to the social dynamic level to handle how mechanically, only the GM remains.
Also what I'm trying to describe with the rules as social currency - that's trying to put it in a constructive, somewhat functional model of play. I could just describe it as utter cluelessness (see Ron's responce to me), because it's close to that and pretty much develops from it, if it develops at all.
Noclue:
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on March 14, 2010, 06:26:25 PM
What happened intrinsically wasn't better than the GM nodding wisely, pretending to look at my roll, and making shit up on the spot in a traditional game. Funny how not so very long ago, I've seen Burning Stuff praised for how those games protect players from various trad GM tricks with open stakes, let it ride, advancement and all.
I think if having to come to an agreement with all the other players feels the same to you as a GM making up an arbitrary outcome and applying it to you, than you are correct BW and BE are not going to be satisfying. In another game, you might have had the ability to declare that your twist happened through fiat or through applying a mechanic, but in the game you were playing consensus was required from the people at the table. The mechanics for DoWs get you to "who wins" and "who loses," and "who has to compromise," but then they demand that the players decide how that compromise is translated into the fiction that you're all creating. For my part, I value the room that the rules allow for creative collaboration regarding compromises, even though I know that not every offer I put forward will be accepted. It's the reason that, much as I love the Fight! mechanics in BW, I find a good DoW much more engaging. What you see as a grain of sand, I see as the heart of the game and the reason I enjoy it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page