*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 10:27:32 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 58 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: Design issue - end of wonder  (Read 1399 times)
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 3588


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2006, 04:09:02 AM »

A recent thread on 'give' has made me realise something (though give is not a forge term and I'm refering to it and that thread as a loose reference).

I think I'm trying to keep the effects of the wonderous items narration seperate, so as to facilitate a type of give. The core issue is that I want the GM to just say as he damn well pleases. I don't want players choosing from an effects menu, nor do I want the complexities that come with the simple idea that 'the GM should be fair' or other stuff that once delved into, goes on for paragraphs, then pages, then multiple threads.

I think what I was setting up, is that the wonderous effects work from a second, largely seperate currency, because the players may not want to give. The GM may say 'nah, does nothing' and the players may simply not find that at all thrilling (and no, were not letting go of 'nah, does nothing' - this is gamism. Fails stay). In another game like DITV, if the player didn't want to explore it you'd find the players spending their resources to beat the conflict, rather than give into it and explore it.

Here, the second currency of 'arm behind' points was basically facilitating that - you don't need these points in terms of the main games currency. That means if you don't want to explore 'nah it doesn't work', you don't have to (by explore I mean figure out a way to beat this, often through trial and error). You can fall back to just the fighting fantasy combat system and still be playing, jolly and happy.

However, if you make the points important to the main game, then there is nothing to fall back to - you have to give or you've simply stopped playing. But frankly I can understand that not every 'nah, it doesn't work' is worth exploring.

There seems almost an antithesis of gamism to support here - giving in on something you can beat. But as noted, it's for a good cause - what your giving into is more interesting to explore than just beating it would be.

My current focus was to simply have two currencies which are largely issolated and thus there's an entirely seperate thing to fall back to. Any other approaches?


Side note: 'Rocks fall' does the same - you only bid resources on dangers you wanted to explore. The raised design issue of 'I never bid, I win!' - well, makes me think of the thread link I give at the start.
Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!