We've all heard the phrase "different strokes for different folks". Not only do people enjoy different activities, they also pursue similar activities for radically different goals
( Read more... )
A friend and I are talking more about these issues and one of the things we wonder about is the inherent difficulties within each kind of play. For example, what if you really like narrative play? Are their problems that exist, even within that specialty, that are unavoidable? For example, the "wall of words" problem. Even if you enjoy narrative play, how can anyone endure an endless wall of words over and over again
( ... )
All good points, and I can relate. I got frustrated with being the "experience provider" that generated all the fun, while other people got to enjoy the fruits of my effort.
I usually find Sim play to turn more into "wall of words" than Nar play, but that might be just me. Nar games, like Sorcerer and the previous generation of HeroWars, required everyone to be more on the same page during the prep phases - which made it more difficult to get games together. I also think you can get too "meta" with all this stuff and spin your wheels without going anywhere.
With the rise of MMORPGS (like World of Warcraft), and the old school renaissance, could the hobby be splitting into entirely different media? That might not be a terrible thing.
A friend and I were chatting about CAs as well last week and he asked me if I would ever run a game again. I said it seemed unlikely except as an experiment in the service of some larger project.
Part of the criticism about game bitterness is that the people complaining don't realize that they are going about getting what they want the wrong way. This does assume that there may be a "right" way to get at it - that they have to play a different game or alter their expectations in some significant sense. I keep wondering if, instead, the problems they find frustrating are built into the games themselves and will be present no matter what they do. Changing games in this case might be like changing a psycho-pharmaceutical - your brain chemistry will slowly change so that the drug you are using won't work any longer
( ... )
In my experience all systems have problems, but some are better than others at facilitating different styles of play. Some are just absolute messes, while others are great examples of CA purity and others are slick hybrids with a feel all their own. Some know what they are and tell you up front. Others have no clue and use the game text to set the would be DM/GM up for failure.
Not everyone can run a good game, and not everyone can design one, that's certainly true, but modding and "house rules" are a form of design that almost all experienced groups do eventually. Lots of gamers talk about going "free-flow" in their favorite sessions. These could be examples of spontaneous outflow of creative "juices" and signs of a group really "gelling" together. They might also be signs of instinctive attempts to fix a broken system or drift the CA.
beyond the [gamist] principlesalimondoJuly 14 2011, 13:34:55 UTC
Nice.
More often than not, WOD game sessions either fizzle [...] or morph into bizarre astral fantasy sessions built around the idiosyncratic quirks of the geeks and goths drawn to the gaming table.
I seem to recall that being the point in the early years. No?
It was definitely the most fertile strain, being directly responsible for Twilight -- the Utah connection -- as well.
Ironically, your perfectionists strike me as refusing to engage the realities of actual play in order to keep their gardens ever virgin. Out here in the world, as we know, the "perfect" is the enemy of, if not the "good," then success itself.
I seem to recall that being the point in the early years. No?True enough, I suppose, but this is also a good example of a Sim creative agenda (We're all going to pretend to be vampires in this vampire world and do vampire things. Go!) The implication being that the quality of the game is judged by the degree of "immersion". This is a common default stance and is often judged as the "right way" to game. In my experience, gamers who accept this premise are often resistant to discussing the nuts and bolts of how a system works (and whether or not it's doing a good job). This isn't entirely surprising. Both Narrativist and Gamist agendas are primarily metagame agendas. They are concerned with what the game produces, while Simulationism is concerned with playing the game itself a certain way
( ... )
caught in the mood / jeux sans frontieressalimondoJuly 14 2011, 17:31:47 UTC
Have to admit I don't know all these "simulationists" or other new-fangled character classes. You know Mark deliberately based most of the original clans on rangers, illusionists and so on, right? It was originally a way to ensure that everybody in the group had somebody they could identify with and encourage that immersion of which thou speaks't.
"Typhoid Mary" and company sound like antitribu or qlipothic versions of those archetypical identifications, which I suppose points to this generation of design as being its own second-order character generation system. Playing at being in an "industry" that never really existed. This post is rife with similar transference from the real to the purely theoretical, with the bizarre astral fantasy session, immersive performance, power gaming and passive consumption of the daydream as the way.
The question is always: what do the characters DO around here?
Re: caught in the mood / jeux sans frontieresbrendan831July 14 2011, 17:39:08 UTC
You know Mark deliberately based most of the original clans on rangers, illusionists and so on, right?
Interesting. That makes sense.
This post is rife with similar transference from the real to the purely theoretical, with the bizarre astral fantasy session, immersive performance, power gaming and passive consumption of the daydream as the way.
Agreed but don't blame me, it was like that when I found it.
The question is always: what do the characters DO around here?
Good question. I find myself, currently, at the strong-hold building levels.
Comments 9
Reply
I usually find Sim play to turn more into "wall of words" than Nar play, but that might be just me. Nar games, like Sorcerer and the previous generation of HeroWars, required everyone to be more on the same page during the prep phases - which made it more difficult to get games together. I also think you can get too "meta" with all this stuff and spin your wheels without going anywhere.
With the rise of MMORPGS (like World of Warcraft), and the old school renaissance, could the hobby be splitting into entirely different media? That might not be a terrible thing.
A friend and I were chatting about CAs as well last week and he asked me if I would ever run a game again. I said it seemed unlikely except as an experiment in the service of some larger project.
Reply
Reply
Not everyone can run a good game, and not everyone can design one, that's certainly true, but modding and "house rules" are a form of design that almost all experienced groups do eventually. Lots of gamers talk about going "free-flow" in their favorite sessions. These could be examples of spontaneous outflow of creative "juices" and signs of a group really "gelling" together. They might also be signs of instinctive attempts to fix a broken system or drift the CA.
Reply
More often than not, WOD game sessions either fizzle [...] or morph into bizarre astral fantasy sessions built around the idiosyncratic quirks of the geeks and goths drawn to the gaming table.
I seem to recall that being the point in the early years. No?
It was definitely the most fertile strain, being directly responsible for Twilight -- the Utah connection -- as well.
Ironically, your perfectionists strike me as refusing to engage the realities of actual play in order to keep their gardens ever virgin. Out here in the world, as we know, the "perfect" is the enemy of, if not the "good," then success itself.
Reply
Reply
"Typhoid Mary" and company sound like antitribu or qlipothic versions of those archetypical identifications, which I suppose points to this generation of design as being its own second-order character generation system. Playing at being in an "industry" that never really existed. This post is rife with similar transference from the real to the purely theoretical, with the bizarre astral fantasy session, immersive performance, power gaming and passive consumption of the daydream as the way.
The question is always: what do the characters DO around here?
Reply
Interesting. That makes sense.
This post is rife with similar transference from the real to the purely theoretical, with the bizarre astral fantasy session, immersive performance, power gaming and passive consumption of the daydream as the way.
Agreed but don't blame me, it was like that when I found it.
The question is always: what do the characters DO around here?
Good question. I find myself, currently, at the strong-hold building levels.
Reply
Leave a comment