Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by lampros, December 04, 2005, 03:14:20 AM
Quote from: lampros on December 04, 2005, 03:14:20 AMB) I think there was a creative agenda clash here. The player wanted to use the spell cuz it was COOL. I'm not sure if "winning" was important to her or not. I wanted the players to "earn" their victory using the rules. The players do too to some degree - they can narrate almost any move they want whenever they like, but they still put serious effort into devoloping mechanically better attacks. I think this clash was part of the problem.
QuoteC) Would you say "the players should earn their character's victory using the rules" is a gamist or simulationist concern? Or does it break the system?
Quote from: lampros on December 04, 2005, 03:14:20 AMThe badass GMC ignored the bodyguards, cuz of the general (but unarticulated) principal that important characters treat extras as so much set dressing. (the players have used this principal to their advantage before.) The player felt sort of cheated. I'm trying to diagnose the problem.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 05, 2005, 08:49:02 AMOkay. When you say "ignore" are you saying "He slapped him aside without even breaking stride, with the broken bones and the bodyguards flying across the battleground and everything," or are you saying "He just walked past them, while they beat on his back with swords"?It seems to me that the bodyguards serve (at least) two purposes: one is to be mechanical defense. Clearly Exalted doesn't back this up, as you've said. The second is to give your adversary a chance to look cool by sweeping them aside in brutal fashion, which in turn makes the protagonist look cool by being the one who can face this really-buff adversary.If the player is objecting to the fact that the bodyguards didn't give a mechanical defense then that's sorta strange, and probably a misunderstanding. If she objects that the bodyguards weren't allowed to sacrifice themselves to make the main characters look cool, that's pretty understandable, and easy to correct in future.If it's something else, of course, then I hope you'll clarify!
Quote from: Callan S. on December 05, 2005, 01:37:59 AMDo you think the serious effort with the system may be to produce stuff (like that spell) with their characters. Stuff that's cool to use? What do they talk about after they've put in serious effort?
QuoteFocusing on the players, do they actively reach for the rules in order to achieve any objectives they may have stated for themselves during play? Or are the rules approached with a causal pattern in mind 'first I do this, THEN I get this'
QuoteThe rules are basically sim, and inevitably leave a lot of holes where the GM has to call things.
QuoteWell - the spell would have looked cool, but it also would have done lots of damage.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on December 06, 2005, 12:08:02 AMBut 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? A cheater and a pussy, that's who, to the Gamist.