Finding El-Dorado in the Zombie Apocalypse
contracycle:
Quote from: Alfryd on March 24, 2011, 01:04:32 PM
I feel, for example, that so many fantasy yarns gravitate toward feudal settings because it helps to satisfy these conditions: the nobility's decision-making has a disproportionate impact on events regardless of individual competency, while political stability is cemented by kinship ties that frequently conflict with large-scale social priorities. This combines to ensure that a privileged handful of characters- and only those handful- make really big choices with really big consequences. (It makes for, at one and the same time, a wonderful dramatic premise and a truly shitty system of government.)
Well, just as a quibble, I don't think that RPG's do gravitate to Feudal settings at all. None of them, or at least none that I have ever seen, have ever done anything remotely like it. Sure there is a sort of nominal genuflection to it, but the texture of the world is actually very modern, such as for example having highly flexible, overproductive economies, countries with strong nationalist sentiments and identities, and yet an ethnic melting pot. Makes me shake my fists at the sky and yell "this is all wrong!".
Now on your broader point, it is quite possible to have moments of premise-addressing play within a broader Sim agenda. Just as it is possible with a generally Narr game for someone to step up to a challenge. CA doesn't mean 100% consistency with everything else totally excluded. But on the other hand, if your setup was so rich with premise issues, and required that they be addressed, and you all did so and enjoyed doing so, then it would likely be described as vanilla narr. The question is not what the setting implies, but what the group actually does. An essentially explorative game which, here and there, raise ethical dilemmas is perfectly feasible and can still be counted within Sim.
Alfryd:
Quote from: contracycle on March 24, 2011, 04:08:24 PM
Well, just as a quibble, I don't think that RPG's do gravitate to Feudal settings at all. None of them, or at least none that I have ever seen, have ever done anything remotely like it. Sure there is a sort of nominal genuflection to it, but the texture of the world is actually very modern, such as for example having highly flexible, overproductive economies, countries with strong nationalist sentiments and identities, and yet an ethnic melting pot. Makes me shake my fists at the sky and yell "this is all wrong!".
I can completely agree with this sentiment, it's just that I was referring to fantasy stories in general, rather than specifically RPGs. Also, fantasy RPGs tend to be designed for the 'little people', insofar as PCs aren't usually all kings and caliphs and sultanas. OMG! That would be totally overpowered! Then they could actually affect the plot! *slaps hands on cheeks*
I would entirely agree that what we were doing could reasonably be called vanilla narrativism, but the point I'm making is that there was nothing about how we played that actually broke with Sim. In other words, as best I can tell, Vanilla Nar is just a specific kind of Simulationism to the same degree that it's just a specific kind of Narrativism. I am not seeing how these modes are exclusive, under those circumstances. (Specifically, premise-rich starting conditions that pose ineluctable moral questions, reasonable power to affect outcomes, some focus on character exploration that recognizes conflict in motives, and no force techniques. Choices+Consequences == Theme.)
Treading further out over the creaking ice, I would suggest that part of the trouble folks on the forge have had with defining Simulationism stems from the idea that they are mutually exclusive. "Gee, this Sim stuff looks kinda wierd. Hard to sum it up succinctly. It's almost as if there's something missing from it- maybe it's a kind of constructive denial?" There's nothing missing from Sim- it's just that the overlapping section on the Venn diagram that was also functional Narrativism got misfiled as Nar-And-Nar-Alone.
Squirming out on my belly to distribute weight more evenly, I would furthermore aver that a lot of techniques/emphases traditionally associated with Simulationist design/play aren't actually Simulationist. They don't enhance verisimilitude or immersion once you actually stop to think about 'em for ten minutes. Or, at least, there are a significant number of traditionally-Narrativist techniques/emphases that have just as much rationale within a Simulationist context.
Frank Tarcikowski:
Alfryd, I totally get this. When I was in the thick of trying to figure out GNS, looking at some of my favourite game sessions, one day I thought they were Sim and the next day I thought they were Nar. One day I read some comments about Nar that seemed just alien to me, considerations on a seamingly abstract level of “statements” and “meaning” and, worst of all, “premise” that I never could relate to, and I thought, these guys are playing a totally different game than me. Another day, I read some account of a supposedly Nar game and I thought, hey, that sounds fun, that’s the kind of thing I like to play, too.
I wrote a lot about my game sessions of old, Star Wars d6 and Vampire, which were pretty clearly Sim by Big Model terms. I know some things have changed for me since then, in particular my approach to GM vs. player tasks and the players’ part in deciding what happens. And sure I emphasize different elements when I play different games. System does matter and all. But when did I cross the Nar line, if ever?
I’ve been a Forge regular since 2004, and for a while I’ve been contributing pretty actively. I even wrote up a summary of the Big Model once which Ron confirmed to be correct. I tell you something. With some games I played in, to this date, I can’t tell you whether they were High Concept Sim with a strong emphasis on drama and player-driven play, or Vanilla Nar with a strong emphasis on Exploration. Or maybe even a Hybrid, though to my understanding of the “state of the Model”, the idea of a “Hybrid” is kind of a relic.
At some point I decided I just don’t need to know.
- Frank
stefoid:
Not that it really matters so much the label you stick on your gaming, but isnt it about the agenda of the players rather than what happens? Two groups playing a survival horror game with different agendas might produce the same scenarios occasionally, by different means. The first group is trying to be as true to in-game cause and effect as possible, whilst the second group is actively pursuing opportunities to confront the characters with interesting decisions -- they both end up barricaded in a stronghold with a hungry person outside.
Roger:
Nope, no traps here. "Fun" isn't anything worth talking about in this context, but that again is a whole other thread.
So, yeah, we all agree that play under all Creative Agendas can have lots of moral quandaries, big solid Premises, etc, embedded in it. Here's what I think the big difference is:
In Story Now, the player characters (and, by proxy, the players) are deciding how to resolve the Premise.
In Right to Dream, the player characters (and, by proxy, the players) are discovering how the Premise is resolved by the System.
That might be sort of a subtle point, so let me illustrate with an example:
We've got our Premise -- "Is a ruthless selfishness necessary to survive in a crisis?"
In a Story Now game, we're typically going to have player characters across the spectrum of ruthless selfishness, and the game will consist of pushing the characters into crisis and seeing how it works out for them. Some of the characters may survive, some may not; some may change their opinions about the Premise along the way. An individual's answer to the Premise is fundamentally a subjective opinion.
In a Right to Dream game, answering the Premise is essentially an exercise in the scientific method. You've got characters who require a certain amount of food each day and who can grow a certain amount of food in a month. What are the minimum and maximum size of a viable group? It's simply a matter of crunching the numbers, rolling the dice, and finding out what the System tells you. The answer to the Premise is already in there, within the parameters and models of the System, waiting to be discovered. It becomes a matter of objective fact.
In my own experience, I think I've seen this come to light most obviously with Vampire: the Masquerade. When I was a bright-eyed naïve new player, I thought, wow, this'll be great -- let's address what it means to be a monster, what it means to be driven by an insatiable hunger. Then I discovered it means that you get three extra dots in Stamina and you need to test versus Willpower to not bite some dude. The theme that I was hoping to personally address was already sitting there, fixed and naked, in the Simulation.
Cheers,
Roger
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page