Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by ewilen, July 12, 2005, 08:38:32 PM
Quote from: ewilenHaving gotten what they wanted, they summarily dispatched him, which horrified both Hassan and me. We thought that the other characters were wicked, and I was annoyed at the other players for doing things this way.
Quote from: ewilenSometime in the course of play, Hassan had picked up an orphan sidekick, a young girl named Gilly. While I personally wasn't particularly keen on this sort of development, and I doubt that I conceived of Hassan as being especially interested in watching out for a child, somehow a connection was made (probably on the basis of assuming responsibility because no one else was going to).
Quote from: TonyLBCool! Sounds like it was a lot of fun!Your phrasing is provoking thoughts in me. You talk about Hassan "expressing" certain traits, where I suspect that I would naturally be talking about my characters "developing" certain traits.Do you feel that Hassan-at-game-end was, in the important ways, the same person as Hassan-at-game-start?
Quote from: bcook1971Hello! It's time to step outside character and tell the GM (as a player) that your fun is not about a hostage, so let's not start. (This is a classic hook to the character's nose-ring.) Also, in fairness to your GM, it behooves you to make plain what your fun is.
QuoteI notice two things about your style, as a player: (1) you like to author fresh direction, unfettered by group concerns, and (2) you prefer subtle machinations that do not broach the grisly or grotesque.
Quote... I'm not entirely willing to exercise authorial control in the service of metagame agenda where it conflicts with character or in-game cause.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 22, 2005, 01:54:59 PMNow - you talk about it as "successful" because there was a strong sense of world and character. I'll give you my feedback on that, which is harsh - that this is like saying, wow, the food wasn't actually poisonous, so relative to my other experiences, it's successful! Never mind that it didn't taste great or that as a group we never did manage to share one another's enjoyment. A strong sense of world and character, as I see it, is a minimal and painless requirement for successful play ... but it's absolutely not sufficient and frankly, a rather poor bone to gnaw on compared to an expressed CA in action.
QuoteAs a final point, I'll focus on your second post:Quote... I'm not entirely willing to exercise authorial control in the service of metagame agenda where it conflicts with character or in-game cause.If there were a medical textbook for diagnosing cognitive confusions about role-playing, this statement would be listed as a key symptom. I can't count the times I've heard it. I can't count the times it's been flung up as a ferocious defense against various discussions of Narrativst play, in particular. (I'm not saying you're doing so.)Think about it - how could authorial control conflict with character? If the character is yours, and if you are really exercising authorial control, then that is the perfect guarantee of preserving character and, for that matter, in-game cause. No, this phrasing isn't an argument. In my experience, it's the sign of someone who's been burned by railroading, and as such, considers "playing my character" even if it's meaningless to be preferable to being Forced. It's the scar of Narrativist tendencies which have been wounded. It's a hole to hide in.
QuoteI think there was a lot of what, based on our GNS discussion, would be either non-directed Sim (character hijinx and "personality costumery") or directed Sim (participationist and/or trailblazing set-piece scenarios). I think the Warnachar campaign would fall more strongly in the "directed Sim" category--again based on memories that are nearly two decades old. Fully realized, any of it? The Warnachar stuff was more consistently successful, I think--things meshed better, and there weren't any clashes over the tone and direction of the game. Now, I might have liked a little more input, it's true. The overall thrust of the Warnachar campaign was a political goal which seemed to have been provided by the GM, possibly with input from one of the other players. (Or to put it another way, the overall thrust of the campaign may have arisen from the GM's desire to please a certain player, with the rest of us along for the ride.) The scenarios were a lot like the CoC stuff you described in my GNS clash thread--pretty linear within each session, with a great deal of mood-setting on the part of the GM and opportunities for problem solving (freeform, skill-based, and combat). The direction of each subsequent scenario was basically agreed on by the group in advance, subject both to the in-game stature and role of the characters and the actual player relationships (to what degree, I don't know--I'm reconstructing here).
Quotedoes the fact that I remember not having full input mean that I was unhappy and there was no expressed CA? I mean, someone might prefer Narrativistism, but do a few pangs on the part of one player mean there isn't a CA?