Game conflict of interests: Crunchiness vs. Introspection

[Dauntless]

In going with the story concept in my other thread, I want to emphasize two complementary aspects.  The first aspect is the militaristic, crunchy and detailed nature of the game world.  It will be hard science fiction set in a plausible world where everything that happens feels like this is how the future might unfold and how we'd do things.  Because of the militaristic nature, it will very simulationistic (though not gamist) in that balancing to determine winners and losers is not a priority, but rather the modeling of futuristic warfare itself.

However, the complementary principle is that the world setting and underlying theme begs for an introspective and internal look at the very nature of what it means to be human.  Instead of looking at the external objects and action, I also want it to explore metaphysics and epistemology.  This I think is the true hallmark of Transhuman science fiction....not what cool powers will technology provide us, but to make us wonder what we will become, and hence to make us realize what we are.

The question, is this an either/or situation, or is it possible to do both of them well?  While I believe in "game system matters", is this more a question of game setting influencing game play rather than system mechanics defining what gameplay is possible?  Afterall, this introspective part that I want the players to be able to dive into is something internalized to the players themselves...in other words it's somewhat seperate from the game (a metagame if you will).

[Green]

The question, is this an either/or situation, or is it possible to do both of them well?  While I believe in "game system matters", is this more a question of game setting influencing game play rather than system mechanics defining what gameplay is possible?  Afterall, this introspective part that I want the players to be able to dive into is something internalized to the players themselves...in other words it's somewhat seperate from the game (a metagame if you will).

As it says in one of the GNS essays (I believe the one on Narrativism), it certainly is possible to do both well, but I think that you really should have a priority.  If you try to devote an equal amount of time and effort to both at the same time, with the same amount of focus on each, then you'll probably run into a conflict of interest.

Case in point: most naturalistic or realistic novels.  The Scarlett Letter, for instance, is actually very plausible given what I've learned of colonial America and the Puritans.  However, the novel itself is not about the history of the Puritans, but the relationships between the main characters and the conflicts between and within human beings.  The historical backdrop provides a context within which these things will express themselves.  Contrast this to a history book that focuses on the social, political, and economic aspects of the America the Puritans inhabited, with the occasional anecdote to illustrate those realities.

[TonyLB]

If you can only do one at a time (in game) then you'll always have a trade-off of doing one badly and one well (at best).

I recommend thinking of a way that both are engaged in the same situations, simultaneously.

For instance, say the military crunchy tactics are against an alien race... for arguments sake "The Bugs".  The Bugs use tactics that human beings would never use... they sacrifice drones without a second thought, and so on and so forth.  Human beings have a tactical difference that is defined largely by what humanity is:  They never leave a man behind, etc., etc.

If you win a battle because of a human decision that the bugs would never have taken then you have just made a powerful statement regarding what is important about humanity, without ever once needing to shift attention away from the tactical situation.  Indeed, you could not have made that same statement in any way but through the tactical situation.