The Forge Forums Read-only Archives
The live Forge Forums
|
Articles
|
Reviews
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
June 28, 2022, 01:43:37 PM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
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
4285
Members Latest Member:
-
Jason DAngelo
Most online today:
91
- most online ever:
565
(October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
The Forge Archives
Archive
RPG Theory
Plucky Underdogs and Complicit Illusionism
Pages: [
1
]
« previous
next »
Author
Topic: Plucky Underdogs and Complicit Illusionism (Read 8785 times)
Roger
Member
Posts: 168
Plucky Underdogs and Complicit Illusionism
«
on:
November 28, 2005, 09:27:23 AM »
Quote from: Arpie on November 27, 2005, 11:13:59 AM
I'd rather see a world where the plucky underdogs make a change for the better.
I've heard this before. This sentiment that "I like games in which I get to play an underdog."
I should clarify the definition of the term in question:
Underdog: one at a disadvantage and expected to lose a contest or struggle.
I've met lots of people who claim that they want to play underdogs. I've never met anyone who actually meant it.
But, hey, don't take my word for it. Go ahead, try giving them what they ask for. Give them a game in which the most probable outcome is failure. Let their characters struggle valiantly and fail most of the time, again and again.
If you find someone who actually enjoys that, you've done better than I have.
So, if they don't really want to be underdogs, what do they want?
They want the illusion of being underdogs. They want to enjoy the Colour of underdogs without suffering any of the System effects of being underdogs.
It's complicit illusionism in one of its most overt forms. The players want the illusion of being underdogs, rather than the reality of being clear favourites. The DM gives them the illusion of facing steep odds, rather than the reality of near-assured success. "Wow, we sure were lucky to overcome those impossible odds!" they'll say to each other, and some may authentically believe in the illusion, and some may not.
Of course, it's not my place to judge styles of play. There is every indication that all the parties complicit in this grand illusion are enjoying themselves, and it'll do no good to jump up and down, yelling that they're doing it All Wrong.
However, I think it's worth pointing this out to prospective GMs and prospective game-designers. If you intend to construct a game in which the players really are underdogs, tread carefully. One runs the risk of deeply disappointing the players, which may raise perplexing questions, as it seems they've been given all they've asked for, yet are not at all satisfied.
Cheers,
Roger
Logged
TonyLB
Member
Posts: 3702
Re: Plucky Underdogs and Complicit Illusionism
«
Reply #1 on:
November 28, 2005, 09:33:57 AM »
I think you're reading too much into it. The underdog is the one who is expected to lose
all other things being equal
. When I hear a player say "I want to be the underdog" I read it as saying that they (the player) want their skill, guts, and overall coolness to be the factor that means that all other things aren't equal. They're saying "Handicap me! Tie one arm behind my back, and tie my shoelaces together, and I'll
still
beat you hands down!" It's gutsy, and I respect it.
Logged
Just published:
Capes
New Project: Misery Bubblegum
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
Posts: 16490
Re: Plucky Underdogs and Complicit Illusionism
«
Reply #2 on:
November 28, 2005, 09:41:35 AM »
Hello,
This is a perfect example of why I want to shut down the RPG Theory forum.
Roger, you've posed an opinion in an "agree with me or I'll fight ya" way. Tony, you're being trapped in an untenable interaction, without realizing it.
The solution? Roger, go to Actual Play and post about a
real experience
with
real other people
which illustrates the point you're making. Then we'll have context to talk about it, and see things from your point of view in a constructive-analytical way. Otherwise, you're merely going to elicit
counter-
reactions by posing "your way," out of context, especially because no one likes to be handed an "agree or fight" choice.
In the interest of making my point to all and sundry, this thread is closed. Roger, you have my recommendation as to your next step.
Best,
Ron
Logged
Pages: [
1
]
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
Welcome to the Archives
-----------------------------
=> Welcome to the Archives
-----------------------------
General Forge Forums
-----------------------------
=> First Thoughts
=> Playtesting
=> Endeavor
=> Actual Play
=> Publishing
=> Connections
=> Conventions
=> Site Discussion
-----------------------------
Archive
-----------------------------
=> RPG Theory
=> GNS Model Discussion
=> Indie Game Design
-----------------------------
Independent Game Forums
-----------------------------
=> Adept Press
=> Arkenstone Publishing
=> Beyond the Wire Productions
=> Black and Green Games
=> Bully Pulpit Games
=> Dark Omen Games
=> Dog Eared Designs
=> Eric J. Boyd Designs
=> Errant Knight Games
=> Galileo Games
=> glyphpress
=> Green Fairy Games
=> Half Meme Press
=> Incarnadine Press
=> lumpley games
=> Muse of Fire Games
=> ndp design
=> Night Sky Games
=> one.seven design
=> Robert Bohl Games
=> Stone Baby Games
=> These Are Our Games
=> Twisted Confessions
=> Universalis
=> Wild Hunt Studios
-----------------------------
Inactive Forums
-----------------------------
=> My Life With Master Playtest
=> Adamant Entertainment
=> Bob Goat Press
=> Burning Wheel
=> Cartoon Action Hour
=> Chimera Creative
=> CRN Games
=> Destroy All Games
=> Evilhat Productions
=> HeroQuest
=> Key 20 Publishing
=> Memento-Mori Theatricks
=> Mystic Ages Online
=> Orbit
=> Scattershot
=> Seraphim Guard
=> Wicked Press
=> Review Discussion
=> XIG Games
=> SimplePhrase Press
=> The Riddle of Steel
=> Random Order Creations
=> Forge Birthday Forum