Wednesday, February 06, 2019
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Death and story
So this has become where on the web I put thoughts inspired by something else on the web, but that I don't think quite fit in that location. From here: "I'm looking [...] to perform a sort of magic trick. They have to do
both: Create the impression of real threat. While at the same time, they
secretly protect from death. What do people reckon? Is this viable? Or a
can't-have-the-cake-and-eat-it situation?"
My, this is more complex to answer than I thought - and I thought it was pretty complex! For now, the short version: I'd say you need to threaten something meaningful, but not death unless it IS appropriate to threaten death. Real threat to something the players care about, combined with flexibility of narrative, i.e., there's not a PARTICULAR narrative you're trying to forward, just trying to make a good one as you play. . "Secretly" is very, very rarely worth the downside in RPGs (IMO).
Another option is possible if the players can simultaneously realize the threat is quite unlikely to be mortal, but still play as if the characters expect it to be mortal. Then you can just stop hiding that the possibility of random-combat character death is usually (but not necessarily always) an illusion. Even this is made easier if there really is something important threatened (anything from pure-player level "man, we did that poorly" to character-based "your honor is besmirched").
Anything more will have to await further discussion - and suddenly I see a way in which G+ might actually be useful, the way spawning a sister thread sometimes works with forums ...
My, this is more complex to answer than I thought - and I thought it was pretty complex! For now, the short version: I'd say you need to threaten something meaningful, but not death unless it IS appropriate to threaten death. Real threat to something the players care about, combined with flexibility of narrative, i.e., there's not a PARTICULAR narrative you're trying to forward, just trying to make a good one as you play. . "Secretly" is very, very rarely worth the downside in RPGs (IMO).
Another option is possible if the players can simultaneously realize the threat is quite unlikely to be mortal, but still play as if the characters expect it to be mortal. Then you can just stop hiding that the possibility of random-combat character death is usually (but not necessarily always) an illusion. Even this is made easier if there really is something important threatened (anything from pure-player level "man, we did that poorly" to character-based "your honor is besmirched").
Anything more will have to await further discussion - and suddenly I see a way in which G+ might actually be useful, the way spawning a sister thread sometimes works with forums ...
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
GNS-driven possible-drivel
OK, I don't think this fits in the anyway thread, but I find I need to type it up, so - this shabby corner of the web is where it gets put. This thead reminded me of the old "when push comes to shove" idea of identifying G, N or S play (one method among many, sometimes praised, sometimes denigrated). If I come into play of Doomed Pilgrim with goals of both "doom that pilgrim" and "make it interesting," that might become a push-comes-to-shove determinant. That is, I might (or not - not is perhaps more likely) find I could no longer do something that I find interesting that also doomed the pilgrim.
If I chose to doom him anyway, maybe (given a bunch of other stuff) that'd be a G decision. If I didn't, maybe it'd be a (again, with a bunch of givens) N decision.
Now, one way to make this go away: if we stipulate that since the rule says doom that pilgrim, you've already agreed to always find that interesting. So stop yer bellyachin', already!
I don't think I buy that stipulation. I say "I don't think" because I haven't entirely convinced myself yet, but - here's what I'm thinking. The very fact that you often can get both your pursuit of doom and another goal invites the attempt, and what one finds interesting (or whatever type of "other goal" you have) may well be - or even become, through play - a stronger influence on behaviour than "merely" following a rule. Especially when that rule is attempting to dictate a choice driven by "what I'm thinking/feeling about an imagined situation right now". Perhaps this is a way in which RPG play is unlike chess play. The goal "doom the imaginary pilgrim" is perhaps not, in fact, the same kind of thing as "checkmate the other player." Because of the primacy of imaginary content (what the words about a doomed pilgrim represent matters, that this piece is a "rook" doesn't really) over an actual thing (the words themselves, or a chess piece on a board)? Or another way of thinking about it, harking back to the anyway thread: once you throw such powerful forces as moral/passionate elements/conflicts into the mix (esp in the mix of RULES), you lose the ability to absolutely prevent them from becoming the goal of play. Chess minimizes (to just about 0) this by NOT including them in the mix, except insofar as humans can't help but include them some.
OK, that last paragraph is messy - my thinking on that part right now is messy. But my suspicion about the stipulation - that's very real, and I think a good read on where the problem lies. There may be ways to allay that suspicion, or perhaps not.
If I chose to doom him anyway, maybe (given a bunch of other stuff) that'd be a G decision. If I didn't, maybe it'd be a (again, with a bunch of givens) N decision.
Now, one way to make this go away: if we stipulate that since the rule says doom that pilgrim, you've already agreed to always find that interesting. So stop yer bellyachin', already!
I don't think I buy that stipulation. I say "I don't think" because I haven't entirely convinced myself yet, but - here's what I'm thinking. The very fact that you often can get both your pursuit of doom and another goal invites the attempt, and what one finds interesting (or whatever type of "other goal" you have) may well be - or even become, through play - a stronger influence on behaviour than "merely" following a rule. Especially when that rule is attempting to dictate a choice driven by "what I'm thinking/feeling about an imagined situation right now". Perhaps this is a way in which RPG play is unlike chess play. The goal "doom the imaginary pilgrim" is perhaps not, in fact, the same kind of thing as "checkmate the other player." Because of the primacy of imaginary content (what the words about a doomed pilgrim represent matters, that this piece is a "rook" doesn't really) over an actual thing (the words themselves, or a chess piece on a board)? Or another way of thinking about it, harking back to the anyway thread: once you throw such powerful forces as moral/passionate elements/conflicts into the mix (esp in the mix of RULES), you lose the ability to absolutely prevent them from becoming the goal of play. Chess minimizes (to just about 0) this by NOT including them in the mix, except insofar as humans can't help but include them some.
OK, that last paragraph is messy - my thinking on that part right now is messy. But my suspicion about the stipulation - that's very real, and I think a good read on where the problem lies. There may be ways to allay that suspicion, or perhaps not.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Activities at the core of RPGs
Thinking about the discussion at anyway has inspired yet another thought. I think it would be quite interesting to use this as a starting point for thinking about roleplaying, and see where it leads. The thought is something like this: the purpose of system in an RPG is to generate validation of contributions (including, but not limited, to moves?) to the fiction, and that validation is perpetually contingent - that is, it can be challenged, retracted, or modified at any time.
That may still need a ton of work, and it may not say anything more than what Boss-Baker already say. Or - part of that principle is about the realization of what system is: that it is revealed retroactivly by whatever the people involved actually do. It certainly touches on what system is for (its' purpose), but maybe it would be helpful to split things up into what system IS, where it comes FROM, and what it DOES?
All still less-than-full-formed, but I wanted to get something down in case the holidays overwhelmed me.
That may still need a ton of work, and it may not say anything more than what Boss-Baker already say. Or - part of that principle is about the realization of what system is: that it is revealed retroactivly by whatever the people involved actually do. It certainly touches on what system is for (its' purpose), but maybe it would be helpful to split things up into what system IS, where it comes FROM, and what it DOES?
All still less-than-full-formed, but I wanted to get something down in case the holidays overwhelmed me.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
More Ownership/Authority/etc. in RPGs
More posting inspired by Vincent Bakers' anyway. For all the (uncorrected) flaws I currently see in it, I think the section below from my book SNAP covers a lot of what I'd have to say about ownership/authority/leadership in RPGs:
Step Zero: Collaboration, Leadership, and “the last word”
Yes, I’m calling this first step “step zero,” because it surfaces throughout both the story preparation process and the actual play of the story. You’re never entirely done with step zero, because it describes some of the basic fundamentals of what it takes to make SNAP work.
The driving principle behind everything in SNAP is collaboration. If you want to create a story on your own, there are plenty of books and teachers to help with that process – SNAP isn’t one of them. As players, everyone is working towards the same goal: to create an engaging story involving the various PCs (either together or separately). That doesn’t mean leadership is unimportant. A collaborative enterprise always needs leaders, organizers, instigators, managers – that’s just how the process works.
The discussion of story preparation above mentioned one thing that needs “leadership” in SNAP: guiding the group through these steps and recording some of the results. That’s a role that needs to be filled. There are, of course, lots of ways to take care of that. But to keep things simple, this book assumes there is one person who takes on that role and a number of other leadership roles in SNAP. I’m calling that person the story leader, and wherever you see those words, you can mentally add a parenthetical “or whichever person or persons the group has agreed will take on that role.”
But since SNAP is a collaborative process, the story leader is never SOLELY responsible for anything in play. Everyone should keep in mind from time to time the issues that the story leader has to deal with, and should feel free to offer ideas and suggestions about those things at appropriate times during (as well as outside of) play.
Part of the point of having a leader, though, is have someone who can get “the last word” in a discussion that’s just not getting anywhere. Someone who, after all the discussion and debate, has the authority and responsibility to make a decision that everyone will then follow.
The SNAP system is actually set up so that the last word does not always fall to the story leader – at certain times in play, or about certain issues in play, it is another player who has the ultimate authority and responsibility. Of course, it’s often good to accept input from others, including the story leader, but those decisions will ultimately be their call.
Step Zero: Collaboration, Leadership, and “the last word”
Yes, I’m calling this first step “step zero,” because it surfaces throughout both the story preparation process and the actual play of the story. You’re never entirely done with step zero, because it describes some of the basic fundamentals of what it takes to make SNAP work.
The driving principle behind everything in SNAP is collaboration. If you want to create a story on your own, there are plenty of books and teachers to help with that process – SNAP isn’t one of them. As players, everyone is working towards the same goal: to create an engaging story involving the various PCs (either together or separately). That doesn’t mean leadership is unimportant. A collaborative enterprise always needs leaders, organizers, instigators, managers – that’s just how the process works.
The discussion of story preparation above mentioned one thing that needs “leadership” in SNAP: guiding the group through these steps and recording some of the results. That’s a role that needs to be filled. There are, of course, lots of ways to take care of that. But to keep things simple, this book assumes there is one person who takes on that role and a number of other leadership roles in SNAP. I’m calling that person the story leader, and wherever you see those words, you can mentally add a parenthetical “or whichever person or persons the group has agreed will take on that role.”
But since SNAP is a collaborative process, the story leader is never SOLELY responsible for anything in play. Everyone should keep in mind from time to time the issues that the story leader has to deal with, and should feel free to offer ideas and suggestions about those things at appropriate times during (as well as outside of) play.
Part of the point of having a leader, though, is have someone who can get “the last word” in a discussion that’s just not getting anywhere. Someone who, after all the discussion and debate, has the authority and responsibility to make a decision that everyone will then follow.
The SNAP system is actually set up so that the last word does not always fall to the story leader – at certain times in play, or about certain issues in play, it is another player who has the ultimate authority and responsibility. Of course, it’s often good to accept input from others, including the story leader, but those decisions will ultimately be their call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)