Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Ricky Donato, April 22, 2006, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on April 22, 2006, 11:47:05 PMWow, Ricky - there's a lot to talk about here. First off, I'm glad you're at the Forge, and glad you're checking out my game.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on April 22, 2006, 11:47:05 PMI have noticed one common factor in people who like it, though: they were already looking for/doing the behaviors it rewards. That is, they were throwing their characters into romantic relationships, or had their characters driven by some need, or whatever. Most importantly, they enjoyed watching their characters really suffer for these needs or causes. You know how we like watching movies where someone has a real purpose, and, man, they hurt for it before they succeed? That's how TSOY will work out under the best circumstances, and it doesn't seem to work as well if you shy away from characters in pain.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on April 22, 2006, 11:47:05 PMThat's why I have one concern. Just from your descriptions, it sounds like your players are used to optimizing character success - which is awesome! - but it's not really conducive to TSOY play, in which the optimum strategy is hard challenges, probably with failure, now in order for success later.
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon on April 22, 2006, 11:47:05 PMBut in the end, who knows? Maybe you'll have a great time! Give it a spin, and let me know for sure.
Quote from: James_Nostack on April 24, 2006, 01:27:47 PM3. The D&D mindset of, "Cannot retreat! Must fight to the end, and win!" doesn't work in SOY. You end up Bringing Down the Pain unnecessarily, burning through all your resources, and then you're fried. D&D encourages a demolition derby mentality that doesn't carry over. 4. The biggest skill in playing SOY is probably figuring out what's really at stake in a conflict, and how much it's worth to you. Sometimes it makes sense to walk away, or give up. It turns out that these set-backs actually make for a much more gripping story, but it's hard to appreciate that when it's all new.
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on April 24, 2006, 06:55:00 AMThis is just my guess, but I think that Clinton doesn't necessarily want to couch the difference in GNS terms. Avoiding the terminology can be useful sometimes, because by dragging that stuff up you necessarily assume that the other party is invested in using it as well. If they're not, well, you come off as an asshole trying to intimidate the others with your fancy theory talk.
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on April 24, 2006, 06:55:00 AMWhich is, by the way, why I suggest that you keep vewy vewy quitet about GNS when discussing this new game with your group. YOU know it's a shift from gam to nar, WE know it, but there's no reason to confuse the issue of changing playstyle further by starting to throw around terminology. Might be that you already realized this, I'm just saying.
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on April 24, 2006, 06:55:00 AMBut, assuming that you figure how to get Step on Up happening, even then you have the problem that you're working to cross-purposes with yourself - you wanted to change games because you want to try a narrativist game, and you go about it by grabbing a couple of committed gamists and start planning how to make the game gamism-friendly?
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on April 24, 2006, 06:55:00 AMNot everybody agrees about what I'm going to say, but all the people I consider authorities do: while it's possible to play several creative agendas in a group, that's the definition of an incoherent play experience; nobody will be satisfied, the quality of the game will undergo drastic shifts from the player perspective, and in the end you still don't have players pulling in the same direction. This is why, although incoherent play is possible and can be enjoyable, I recommend that people focus on getting coherent in GNS terms first, to exclusion of everything else.
Quote from: James_Nostack on April 24, 2006, 01:27:47 PM* Don't -- don't -- say, "Hi guys, let's give up on this system you've been having fun with (I hope) and replace it with this new thing." It'll make people feel threatened and more argumentative than necessary, which will mean you personally will have a frustrating time.* The only reason I'd make a permanent switch is because everyone else is on board. Which means, (a) they like SOY, and (b) they consciously would prefer SOY for this particular game.