|
Oh cool, I 'm still hoping to get an answer to that question. So to continue my trend of saying stupid things that invite ridicule in a pathetic attempt to engage with other human beings over the internet; it sounds like one of the play styles being described is somewhat analogous to the procedurally generated content in some computer games, with initial content and starting conditions determined, somehow, and then continuing in an open ended dialectical manner in response to player interaction with those starting conditions. During play and afterwards a narrative is created by the participants as they process the series of events that've occurred, and their attachment/investment in this narrative influences their actions independent of game mechanics in a continuing game. This creation of story occurs even though nothing in the game mechanics directly interfaces with it on the level of "story". Is that somewhat close? I'm not drawing the comparison to computer games in a derogatory manner - one of my favorite parts of Civ V is creating a narrative that explains why my civ will stop at nothing to drive the fascists into the sea, even if following that narrative doesn't have anything to do with the mechanics or victory conditions. Often in D&D or similar games the desire to advance a character mechanically by leveling, etc, rapidly fades to second place next to a concern with what they're going to do to influence the game world. On the subject of why doors are locked, I’d rather the door be locked or unlocked for a reason internally congruent with the setting/narrative rather than because it’s dramatic. The best reason I can put forth for this is that it feels like a game where things always tend toward the most dramatic/interesting option is boring after a while, because there isn’t room for surprise, lateral thinking or having a quiet boring moment to contrast the exciting things. If everything is always interesting all the time (either because it is or those are the only moments you focus on) than it gets repetitious through overexposure. And I get that 99% of the time a locked door is either picked, knocked or bashed down, but some of my favorite gaming moments have been when players creatively got around a locked door by doing something I didn’t expect and I love those kinds of surprises. I find them easier to come by when players are reacting to the constraints imposed by a more simulationist rules set.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:It took three rereads but I think I finally understood what you're trying to say. Thanks and I’ll try to organize my thoughts more clearly. In the first part I was trying to describe the style of play that I’m most familiar with, which roughly adheres to a dynamic of; Initial Situation -> Player Actions (+ GM Reaction) -> (New) Situation; repeat. Depending on the game the initial situation is set up by a GM or collaboratively by the players, the characters then take actions in response to the initial situation, creating a new one that requires further actions. This can be complicated or refined all sorts of ways –the initial situation might include a timeline of actions that npcs will take until the player actions intersect with them, etc. So attempting to use Effectronica’s earlier definitions, in this style of play the plot would arise from the order of events, with each event being the result of player interaction with a situation, which creates and sets up the next event. In this the player’s decisions at each juncture are influenced by how they initially conceived the character, what’s happened to them already and what they desire to have happen to them. This biographical element forms a major part of how each player perceives the story of that game and informs their choices going forward. Now to make a fool of myself by discussing doors; I agree that the door being locked or unlocked depending on the drama of the situation doesn't make for a boring game – but also that it can potentially make for a game that never has boring moments. Which I admit sounds stupid. But if you elide everything surrounding the dramatic portions of the game with narration, so that choices only ever exist in dramatic contexts, it lessens the impact of those moments because they’re all dramatic. Even most roller coasters have long slow climbs that build tension and anticipation because they're not fast downhills. So, in the example given, if the players come across a door that stops them dead in their tracks, how they determine to get past it isn't boring. I assume there’s a reason they want it open and multiple ways to open it, even if none of them are immediately at hand and they might have to seek one out and come back to that door later on. edit: Capitalization. Glorified Scrivener fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 19:03
|
|