Started by Natespank, February 06, 2011, 02:37:39 AM
QuoteNate, to genuinely do it, then I think every mechanical action a player takes either takes them mechanically closer to the end, or mechanically closer to the start. Imagine 1000 is the end and you start at zero, and each mechanical action you take increases your number up or down (possibly back to zero). If you think about it, that's how zelda was - every movement got you closer to something, either that gets you nearer to the end, or sets you back/further away from it.Mollases and murk. What happens in roleplay, I think, and makes people cease leading themselves, is that play ends up just alot of talk. "I go to the tavern" "Okay, you go to the tavern, it's half full". Did going to the tavern get you closer to the final victory? Or did it send you further away? Or are we just talk, talk talking and have ceased to go forward or backward at all? Are we wading through molasses or stumbling blind in murk, not getting toward either direction? Hell, even if we roll dice, did a pass get us closer (or even further away)? In traditional design even dice rolls aren't connected to the win/lose track/even the dice have no traction.
Quoteow to me, that first paragraph is the genuine way to do it. The non genuine way is that players already were self leaders, they talk fiction about what their character 'does' and they think and feel they are getting somewhere. And the GM humours this feeling, unless it gets too big when they aren't that close to the GM's decided end, in which case he swats down their self leading with something, but not too much, don't want to extinguish it. To me, it's pretty illusionist. And I mean illusionist whether you wanted it to be or not. I've run games that way without wanting to be illusionist - and that west marches would fall into this as well, barring it having some overall mechanical spine like in the first paragraph and traveling on it on every single mechanical action the players take.
QuoteIf it's a gamist game, they are NEVER going to genuinely follow their characters own goals
QuoteIn a genuine win/lose track - it might become apparent to them that their destiny is back in their hands.
QuoteAnd finally, the more you really want the PC's to pursue their own goals, probably the more your drifting toward narrativist inclinations. If it's a gamist game, they are NEVER going to genuinely follow their characters own goals - it is always going to be contaminated with the pursuit of the final win of this real life game. If contaminated PC goals aren't good enough for you, then you'll just have to go full on narrativism. If contaminated PC goals is okay, then I've given my suggestions above
Quote from: Natespank on February 17, 2011, 10:36:40 PMIn my experience it's up to the DM to organize the games and ensure participation; lay down ground rules for play; keep things on track, and, well, design the adventures. For me it's been a leadership role. The DMs I know who don't do the organizing quickly lose their players; those who don't keep things on track lose their players to smirnoff; those without ground rules lead to some real chaos. It'd be interesting to play without a GM leader role.
QuoteI'm afraid that's a little vague. Could you clarify and use an example?
QuoteThe molasses situation even arises in chess, when neither player makes useful moves for a while. It never lasts forever, but can kill a game. Molasses is sort of where DM quests come in- when the players are doing "stupid" things you offer them something better to do.
QuoteWhat if you make it painfully obvious that a useless action IS useless?
Quotein which case he swats down their self leading with something, but not too much, don't want to extinguish it.
QuoteI disagree with dividing gamism out of sim/narr. You can make a situation where the game IS fulfilling the character's goal; or where the game IS playing as competitive adventurers. You can combine them a lot, imho. You still get incoherent games- D&D early editions, Rifts, omg!- but you CAN combine them.
QuoteI feel like this precludes shared authorship with the players. I think shared authorship in a gamist or sim game might be a bad thing to an extent- it pollutes the world in a way. I mean, they can endlessly enrich the world- but then it ceases to be an "external" challenge for them to overcome and react to.
QuoteHowever, I think we can make new designs that ensure that we are mechanically headed toward a result. We can work it out here.
QuoteGames like, say, My Life With Master are pretty tightly framed in the way they create a particular situation, and have them play out along certain patterns, In this game the characters are all the minions of an sort of villainous overlord figure and have to resolve their own identity and relationship with the Master. This doesn't mean identical play in every instance, of course, but the direction of play is implicit in the design itself. It's certainly not the conventional sort of RPG which has a world, some loosely attached system, and then says "go figure out what to do to and how to do it yourself".