Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Alex, February 27, 2002, 02:46:58 PM
Quote from: Alexthe group can split up much more easily if need be - without players being aware out-of-game about what the other characters are doing.
Quote from: Alex My point is simply that what I have seen described as "Narrativist play" seems to depend mostly on the naive optimism that ALL players will cooperate with each other, and this is rarely the case. Furthermore, isn't the expectation that players should cooperate itself a constraint? Some of the most amazing roleplaying I have seen came from a 1910 Vampire game where two PCs who loathed each other (one a Ventrue, the other a Brujah) kept on enacting intricate plots to undercut the other character's standing in court. If we constrain players with the expectation that they should cooperate, I think that a lot of the potential of Sorcerer is lost. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful game with an amazing concept, but it could be so much more.
QuoteNaturally, in a competitive game, it is very important to have rules that are fair and establish play balance, and this is why I may be perceived by many of you at a "simulationist." The truth is simply that narrativist rules seem designed to facilitate storytelling rather than fairness or play balance, so in a competitive game which uses Narrativist rules the character most likely to win is simply the one who most entertains the GM. Simulationist games, on the other hand, tend to be very equitable in terms of game balance. Of course, I'm not a masochist - I don't like simulationist games where it takes an hour to compute the trajectory of a slingstone. I simply want a streamlined system which is fair, maintains game balance, and allows characters to compete with each other on an equal footing.