Started by Filip Luszczyk, March 03, 2010, 11:09:26 AM
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on March 07, 2010, 06:38:09 PMYes! Something concrete from that older MG campaign has finally popped up.We wanted to re-visit and interrogate a bartender who, previously, sold us to agents from another city. We wanted the bartender to spill everything about those agents, he wanted to prove the Guard is oppressive or something like that, I believe. We played some good cop, bad cop. We lost with a compromise. I suggested a twist: we don't learn anything significant, but only because a dagger thrown from an unknown direction kills the bartender, and we're left with a body on the floor. Seemed adequate to the situation and pretty cinematic. I recall being very enthusiasthic about that outcome. The rest of the group was like, uh, oh, maybe, but no. Then, a few other suggestions were made, before we reached the final outcome, but I had no other ideas. I was at best neutral about those ideas and I felt sort of dissapointed. I don't even recall that final compromise now. However, I'm perfectly sure it didn't affect the campaign at large, that deal with the bartender never came up again, and we didn't engage those agents in later missions.
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on March 09, 2010, 12:37:51 AMI 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?
Quote from: Callan S. on March 11, 2010, 07:13:45 PMBut in all the RPG's you've played, did they always deliberately put them in?
Quote from: Callan S. on March 12, 2010, 05:52:14 PMYes, 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.
QuoteBecause 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.
QuoteHi 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?
QuoteA "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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on March 14, 2010, 10:26:25 PMWhat 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.
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on March 14, 2010, 10:26:25 PMHowever, 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.