[INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
stefoid:
err, I mean "Im not sure what you mean"
Callan S.:
Stefoid, from my observation of the 'imaginative space' (ie, my estimate of what each person is imagining around a table and how much they actually match up), 'pieces' so to speak appear and disappear all the time, simply because were not dealing with physics. In chess, the pieces don't do that, as they rely on something external to the brain/imagination.
Maybe your thinking that when you group plays, your imagination is rock solid - all the pieces that exist, keep existing. But if I sat in with a notepad on a sesion, I bet I could find pieces popping in and out of assumed existance all over the place. That's why I don't find the arrangement tactically enjoyable.
For contrast, when I design I treat spoken fiction as simply appealing to peoples sympathies, that they might hand over resources in sympathy with what's spoken (and I might do the same) and only allow part (like half or less) of the resources of play to be doled out by anyone, based on that. The resources that aren't based on sympathy and instead 'rules first' lend tactical significance to whether someone (like a GM) doles out resources from his budget, but the actual interaction itself is still a sympathetic one (or, in some circumstances, conmanship (or alternatively, it's hard to draw a line between seeking sympathy and conmanship, as in where one ends and the other begins)).
I'm trying to second guess your perspective "No! It is tactics! I can totally see the crates in they alley and the guard beyond and how you could really dart from wall to wall to the top of the crates and then totally get the drop on that guard! What is that if not tactics!?". If I've repeated what you might think to some degree, it shows I know what you mean. But even knowing, I still say it's not tactics. It's a sympathetic exchange (or 'working sympathies'). That's my estimate on the matter.
stefoid:
OK, I understand what you're saying now. But I dont find the distinction important myself. Im happy to define tactics as deciding how best to the utilize of the game mechanics. Tactics are about offering a game player viable options, both in planning and execution stages. That is built-in fun for a lot of humans I think. The key is presenting multiple viable options.
Thats why this mysterious 'balance' is important. Even if the mechanics offer you multiple options, if the degree of opposition is not pitched right (i.e. too soft or too hard), then your options aren't viable -- you will win or lose respectively, regardless of which option you chose. Decisions that matter, thats the ticket.
So....I agree that the fictional situation isnt concrete -- except where it is pinned down by a mechanic that is brought into play. If I say "I make a play to climb to the top of the crates in order to gain advantage over the guard", then *poof* the crates, previously a nebulous scenery detail, are now concrete. But so what? The player has decided to take the option of maneuvering to gain advantage. The mechanics offer this as a viable option. But there are others. Perhaps I designed my character to be a crack shot, so a better solution might be simply to take a hard shot? etc, etc...
So to sum up, I think the important thing is for the rules to offer the player decisions that matter. The process of the player then picking the optimal decision at the optimal time, for each stage or situation of the game they are in, is 'tactics'.
The opposite of that would be a conflict resolution system like, PTA? FITM mechanics are inherently un-tactical I think. So, I do a bunch of stuff in the fiction, we call a conflict, I state my intentions and we roll dice. The dice decide if I win my stakes or not. then I narrate how I won the stakes or I didnt. Where are the multiple viable options? There aren't any.
Callan S.:
Quote
If I say "I make a play to climb to the top of the crates in order to gain advantage over the guard", then *poof* the crates, previously a nebulous scenery detail, are now concrete. But so what? The player has decided to take the option of maneuvering to gain advantage. The mechanics offer this as a viable option.
The standard model of play is that the buck stops with someone, who determines if they treat something as 'existant' (as nebulous as that term is in this context). Typically the buck stop is the GM (this can be changed by rules, of course). Under this buck stop arrangement, it has not been made concrete and the player isn't manouvering. He's waiting on the GM to say yay or nay. In terms of decisions that matter, the player isn't making a decision, he's actually waiting on the person who does make the decision that matters (the GM). It'd be like playing chess, going to make check-mate with a piece...then realising you can only move that piece if the GM allows you to (and...if it 'fits the fiction', then you might be allowed to check-mate). Atleast for me, I don't call that manouvering. Indeed it's exactly where 'molasses' seeps in, in games I've played. It often feels more like wading or having no traction at all.
Here's a mechanic I thought of some time ago - basically the player has a budget of points - now he spends the full price for something, describing his actions. Now the thing is the GM, if sympathetic to the described actions, can call a lower price after that and the player gets a refund of part of his points.
This makes the player proactive instead of waiting on someones say so, because they have payed the points already. So whatever it is, is the case. However, instead of just paying points and spoken fiction isn't relevant, spoken fiction can matter, because it might considerably lower the price and the player gets some of his points back. Taking to this game, he could just buy the bonuses he gets, but his spoken fiction might be the thing upon which it hinges whether he gets the majority of those points back. There is no 'mother, may I?' passive waiting point.
Of course, this negates the idea of fiction first - fiction first predicates itself on the backstop having the final say on everything. With my example, it's merely 'fiction may be very useful'.
stefoid:
Quote from: Callan S. on April 28, 2011, 08:21:45 PM
Quote
If I say "I make a play to climb to the top of the crates in order to gain advantage over the guard", then *poof* the crates, previously a nebulous scenery detail, are now concrete. But so what? The player has decided to take the option of maneuvering to gain advantage. The mechanics offer this as a viable option.
The standard model of play is that the buck stops with someone, who determines if they treat something as 'existant' (as nebulous as that term is in this context). Typically the buck stop is the GM (this can be changed by rules, of course). Under this buck stop arrangement, it has not been made concrete and the player isn't manouvering. He's waiting on the GM to say yay or nay. In terms of decisions that matter, the player isn't making a decision, he's actually waiting on the person who does make the decision that matters (the GM). It'd be like playing chess, going to make check-mate with a piece...then realising you can only move that piece if the GM allows you to (and...if it 'fits the fiction', then you might be allowed to check-mate). Atleast for me, I don't call that maneuvering. Indeed it's exactly where 'molasses' seeps in, in games I've played. It often feels more like wading or having no traction at all.
Well, Ill talk about Ingenero, since that is what the thread is about. Yes, the GM decrees whether crates exist or not. The player does not get to say 'there are crates', although they can certainly ask "what cover is available?", (which is a leading question...) The player does get to say "I try to gain advantage", with the proviso that they also have to work it into the fiction. But there are a lot of ways to engineer it -- that on the spot creativity is part of the fun. Maybe my comrade puts his hat on a stick to draw fire, either to make the guard expose himself to counter fire, or to distract him while I maneuver for advantage, etc... there's just a lot of ways to get the job done. I dont see it as restrictive or delegating to the GM at all.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page