Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Christoffer Lernö, October 24, 2002, 02:53:50 AM
Quote from: Pale FireWhat I mean by "Effect First" doesn't isn't intimately bound to the plot, it's a way to look at how events are added to the narrative from the GM's point of view. [EF] can be applied both to game events and to the plot itself, I argue that it's most powerful when it's applied to both. This is not to be taken as nothing can be preplanned. Pure IntCon then, is when GM is thinking effects first cause later.If I think: "Oh, they need something to happen at this lake, maybe I can put a monster in it. Ok I chose monster X. Now from the monster X's point of view, what happens?" - and then the encounter takes up from there. Well if I think like that I'm NOT doing EF.If I, on the other hand, think: "Oh, they need something to happen at this lake. Maybe I a monster comes out of it? Ok I chose monster X. The monster is now leaving lake X", then I'm doing EF.[/list:u]It seems a little counter-intuitive that this is better. In the former case I've carefully tried to sim-style let the monster act reasonably, whereas in the second it just pops up as if it was a wandering monster straight out of D&D.It's also important to differentiate pure EF and semi-EF play. There are some things you only get from playing pure EF.In the first monster case which I declared wasn't EF, could be an illustration of problematic semi-EF if the GM later wants to explain why there was a monster in the lake. You're also running things EF style if you're GMing horror and as the pace winds down you give them a sound or something scary to happen even though you yourself don't know what the sound means or why the scary thing happens.The benefit of pure EF is that the actions will be exactly what the GM thinks the narrative needs, and not a "filtered through the system" kind of thing.
Quote from: Pale FireFor me personally, I tend to end up in semi-EF land. This is a very unsatisfying mode of play really and full of potential hazards. This tends to happen when you have a kind of plot and NPCs driving the story and then try to flesh out that with EF. There are a lot of potential conflicts, not to mention you might get prevented from running EF when you really need it.I've found that I drift into semi-EF play when I play games where I'm employing rules both to NPC and PC actions. If the NPCs are governed by much simpler rules (either through tweaking the system, ignoring rules or as endorsed by the system) that facilitates pure EF play for game events.I think this comes because on one hand the GM would be best supported by a game which supports Narrativism and on the other the players should remain playing Sim.
Quote from: Pale FireI want to make a point that this kind of effect-first-retcon-later is different from bang-driven play or similar plot creating methods.
Quote from: Pale FireThe question is how do we referee this situation.For example in combat:Bob the Mighty Barbarian (controlled by the Player) is attacking the Goblin King (GM). Bob rolls pretty high, and gives a result which would knock the Goblin King out. The GM on the other hand it would be a whole lot more dramatic if the Goblin King died. BUT, if the GM says "oh, you killed him", then Bob's player might feel cheated because he won so easily and maybe didn't get the chance to roll all his damage dice and all.[/list:u]We also have the example from "protagonizing the setting" where the GM whips up an effect for the boss that might be dramatic, but which seems to break the rules of the ordering in the combat system (hey Bob should have been able to swing before the Demigod swiped him to the ground because that's how it works in this system).
Quote from: Pale FireSure we're partly talking about Gamist players here, but it's also about player disbelief in the GM illusion.In the GM is pretending to use the same system the players are then the GM can't overtly break rules.
Quote from: Pale FireSo it would seem that a system facilitating EF would be a system which explicitly allows the GM to make Narrativist decisions while at the same regulating these so that the players can feel like they're playing Sim.
Quote from: Mike HolmesI think you've totally missed Christoffer's point, Fang....All I see above is you dismissing what he thinks is the problem without any reasoning at all (two sentences, no argument, just dismissal), and then substituting your own idea of what the problem must be.
Quote from: Mike HolmesIn what I call Illusionism, half the techniques are what some people call "Cheating". They are about ignoring the mechanical results and creating story despite those results, while leaving the feeling that you did use the system. I am aware that you think this is dysfunctional, but it's a method that I claim works just fine."
Quote from: RobertSim is prioritized in direct relation to the immediacy of the decision. So an Illusionist GM wouldn't (overtly) fudge a damage result to get a better story any more than he would map out the continent using a complicated algorithm/die roll combo. One situation is immediate and thus calls for a Sim approach, and the other is way in the background and thus calls for a Nar approach.
Quote from: And earlier, FangQuote from: Pale FireThe GM plays effects firstThis is made much harder if all or many of the effects in the game world has to be determined by die rolling, because then the GM should really first define the cause of the effect, then roll if the effect appears. It's obvious that this is problem. Most traditionally games are cause first, effect later (if ever).I think there's an inherent problem here of scale. I swing my sword and you take damage is cause and effect. I can't imagine rules were you take damage and then we decide I must be swinging my sword (especially if I was doing something else at the time).
Quote from: Pale FireThe GM plays effects firstThis is made much harder if all or many of the effects in the game world has to be determined by die rolling, because then the GM should really first define the cause of the effect, then roll if the effect appears. It's obvious that this is problem.
Quote from: wfreitagSo naturally, no one's created anything like it since? :-b
Quote from: contracycleQuote from: wfreitagSo naturally, no one's created anything like it since? :-bI believe its been reprinted by a British fan group. I have "100 plots", "100 patrons" (I think) and "100 cargoes"
QuoteIf the internal logic, the conventions, of the situation works, like in bad but exciting movies, then the players are less likely to question things.