Gamism vs Simulated Gamism
Cliff H:
To tack a question onto the end of this finding, the results of this experiment obviously show that my "always in risk of death" player has no interest in even entertaining the thought of character death, and yet he's the most aggressive one at the table (to NPCs, not fellow players). He'll fight anything anytime, never once take a defensive action, and if he's alone that's all the better. So he wants to be pure offense without a single consideration to self-preservation, but he doesn't want to die, at all.
I'm thinking at this point that a good game match for him would be one that relegates defense to passive, establish and forget defense mechanics, like armor in D&D. Yeah, I know since 3e there's been some active defense options, but even the most tactical players in my circle have never, ever used them. Is there anything else out there that has something like this? Or, even better yet, does anyone have experience meeting this style of play to deliver a satisfactory experience in general?
contracycle:
Well..... this does remind me somewhat of games past, but I'm not sure the match is a good one. I've done a lot of "fake danger" stuff; special effects that don't really exist mechanically. Like in seventh sea terms, maybe have a cannon ball pass through the hull, missing everyone by a whisker and showering them in splinters. This external to and on top of the normal functioning of the system. As I say, special effects, the appearance of danger without making it tangible. It certainly can serve to up the pitch and tempo without actually introducing any new levels of danger, but I'm not convinced that this is really the point at issue.
Callan S.:
Wow, what a clear cut result! No fuzzy mollases like ambiguity about what's going on! Good on you for trying this, Cliff!
I dunno, but perhaps this will be alot easier on you as you wont be trying to provide him with gamism then, as it turns out, obviously getting negative feedback from him for doing so because that's not what he wants (and then racking your brain on how to deliver the gamism, etc).
He's got some 'My character defeats all' passion going on, you just play the backstage stage hands who set up the structure to facilitate the playing out of that passion.
Cliff H:
So after letting the results of my experiment simmer for a little bit, I had a much more in depth conversation with one of my players. No theory, but a lot of "what are you looking for?" kind of stuff. What came out was that this person, the biggest proponent of all grave danger all the time, doesn't particularly like high lethality games. In fact, he'd prefer to never die. However, he staunchly believes two things that lead him to his stated attitude:
1) There are certain things that belong solely in the GM's hands no matter what. Matters of life and death, for PC and NPC alike, are among those things. They should be decision made in secrets ("behind the shiled" was his term) and handed down. It's what a GM's authority exists for, so he says.
2) Rules that allow for easy character survival are fine, even preferred. But death rules, whatever they are, should be played, not circumnavigated. If you forever fudge rolls and rules so that the PCs never die, all sense of risk evaporates from the game and it becomes boring. So if you don't want to run a high mortality game, don't use high mortality rules, but once you pick a set of them, use them and don't cheat them.
I played with a GM in college who refused to kill his PCs, but he'd massacre them just short of death and come up with terribly lame reasons why we didn't die. Sometimes the bad guys would just give up on the verge of victory. More often we'd wake up in a mysterious clinic beholden to yet someone else. So I see where my player's coming from (he was in that campaign suffering along with me). Still, I'm not sure any of that reflects what he really wants from a game on a fundamental level. He just doesn't want death cheats turned into a tool to dick him continually, which is what they were in games past. It is, however, the most powerful opinion he's expressed on gaming preference to date, and I've noticed that a lot of his (and others') attitudes are a lot of that "should" stuff that you get from game books everywhere.
You know, an unexpected side effect of this is an increasing sense of annoyance I experience when confronted with what a GM should be doing. Not only does it feel more and more limiting as I read other designs, but it also feels a little cheap given that I'm always the GM. I'm supposed to be the one to decide if your character dies, not you.. I'm the one who's supposed to control things while giving you complete freedom. Why? Because. I'm *really* looking forward to transitioning my gorup to something else as an experiment in broadening our collective horizons.
Callan S.:
Hi Cliff,
I saw this comedy film once and it had this bit where a guy is ostensibly being dominated by a dominatrix. But then the dominatrix does a certain thing and he suddenly snaps around and says no, your doing it wrong, in no uncertain terms. Really he was dominating the scenario. It was kinda funny - must have seen that over a decade ago...
I'd say with #1, it's much the same. He's not suggesting all that to you, he's telling you. It's a really awkward he's in charge but your in charge but only as much as he decides, in precise terms, because he's in charge. I mean, is he saying he likes this or is he saying this is how it should be (like he just walked out from behind a bush with a stone tablet in hand, this written on it)?
In other words it's a massive source of that 'should' stuff your talking about.
I'm not sure you can appease him. Because with #1, it's not like something he just likes - because with something you like, you can compromise on that. No, with #1 this must absolutely be the case. You can't even just pitch it to him and say 'Well okay, tell me how to run the game, moment to moment' because he'll say 'oh, your the GM - your in charge of that!'.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page