[More Abyssals] CA Clashes and holes in gamist systems.

[Kintara]

Kintara, if I'm understanding your post correctly (correct me if I don't), then you're suggesting a solution for the game we're talking about. I agree that any number of sorts of Drift would work well, although I really don't think my own preferred Sorcerer-style Narrativist GMing is a candidate.

However, I think you might be putting the cart before the horse. You don't Drift rules in order to create new goals of play; your existing goals of play lead you to Drift rules. So if this GM is meeting his goals, saying "Drift'em!" is no solution.

Best,
Ron

Ah, well, I see your point.  I was looking at your post, though, and commenting on the pattern that you typically see, which seems to indicate that the GM adopts a "story play" approach simply because that's what you're told to do.

Hm, I think I understand why a narrativist GMing approach might not work, as it's still potentially a clash of CAs.  Maybe I should ask the folks over at RPG.net that have maintained successful Exalted games their approaches (it's a board darling).  I'm curious myself, as I've always wanted to run Exalted, but I've always been cautious to do so as I never knew how to approach it as a GM.

Thanks Ron.

[Callan S.]

But that's bogus to the Gamist - what's the point of having cool spells if you can't use them? And if you can come up with a way to use them (protect yourself during the window of vulnerability), then who the hell is the GM to override that?

Heya,

A GM's call is a risk the player took on when they declared their objective/address of challenge*. Like if the gamist banked his resources on the flip of a coin, in order to meet his stated objective. The coin coming up tails and the GM's call are a risk. The issue with that is when the GM turns out to be considerably more/lees of a risk than predicted when making the address (that problem is like banking your resources on a coin flip - then finding out you have a less than 50% chance of winning (or more than 50%))

I don't think the GM was inconsistent (using the players own bypassing of mooks as precedent for his call is pretty damn predictable, actually). If we can eliminate that as a possibility, it leaves us with "The player didn't take on the risks - they were interested in taking on else".

Previous threads on strategic use of the rules in capes repeated that it isn't gamism. What if there isn't the same old CA clash thing and it's simulationists clashing with simulationists? Tony's previously posted actual play threads of negotiations for narrativist play that would have turned out bitter if it weren't for the Capes rules.

* This is a bit of a change in my past address of challenge ideas.