>From: Gianfranco Geroldi <giangero_at_...>
>
>
>Yes, but I basically see it as 'yet another way for
>the narrator to fudge'.
I understand your POV. I hate "Fudging" which I'll define as the GM voiding the rules (the agreed to social contract of the play group) in order to make events come out "better."
But if it's a rule, then it's not fudging, correct? That is, if all the players agree that this is a GM duty, then it's not fudging for him to do it, right? All RPGs require GM judgement at some point - in fact in a technical sense that could almost be said to be definitional of RPGs. Take the rules for Improv Modifiers. The GM sets the level of the modifier, up to and including making any contest an "automatic failure." Mirroring the automatic success rules here. The narrator in HQ is very much empowered to make this sort of decision.
Now, if you want to say that my interpretation of the text is somewhat radical, then you may have a point. I am doing some fancy interpretation here, I'll admit. But, OK, let's say that what I'm doing isn't what the text implies, and I'm not playing HQ verbatim. That makes this a house rule.
That's fine, it's still a rule in my game. My players are quite aware that I do it. In fact, at times I consult with the players on what they think would be interesting stakes for a contest. So it's all quite out in the open, and expected. Not fudging.
>For one reason because it is another effort of
>creativity and intuition resting on the narrator's
>shoulders.
This is true, it is a responsibility. But the results are so much better than not shouldering this responsibility that I, for one, gladly bear it. It also tends to be a fun responsibility in my experience. If it's not for you, there's nothing in what I've said that says that the rules are such that you must do this. Just that I feel that the rules leave it open.
>For another reasons because it may be sensed as
>railroading by the players.
The only good technical definition for railroading - often used simply to mean "I don't like what the GM is doing" - is where the GM takes away the player's ability to make the sorts of decisions that he expects to be able to make in play so as to affect the course of the game. This varies amongst different sorts of players. But the fact is that all resolution systems can be used to railroad, or to avoid railroading. It all depends on how the GM uses them. Do you use the results to force a plot on the characters, or do you use the results to give them choices?
Let's take the Opening example in question. If I decide that the stakes for this contest are such that, whether you fail or succeed, then you're going to go get marooned, so that I can then lead you through a series of scenes on the island fighting giant crabs and such, yeah, that's railroading. If, instead, I use it to lead to the island, where the players have the moral dilemma of whether or not to tell the natives there that they're worshipping a lifeless stone, then I'm facilitating the players having options of how to move the story forward.
Not the best example. But if you saw how I play, which includes all sorts of methods by which I give choices to the players, instead of taking them away (starting with never playing "adventures" or having a "plot"), I think you'd see that you can use this and not railroad.
Now, that said, what you may also be saying, is that the players may feel the heavy hand of the GM behind what they may otherwise be used to as "Fate." That's a somewhat different concern. And this is where Ian's point about verisimilitude comes in, in that this is a somewhat different style of play than many are used to.
All I can say to that is that I've never had a disapointed player. Oh, sure, sometimes they comment that it's a different sort of play. That happens. But, quite literally, in hundreds of sessions of HQ play, I've yet to have a player who didn't have a good time playing this way. I think that, functionally, players simply don't note the effect that you're commenting on. Rather, the GM is always affecting the way that play goes as a specific sort of "player" himself in a RPG, and no amount of adherence to "standard" resolutions really makes that go away. Rather, we always know it's a fiction, so "more fictional" and "less fictional" don't really seem to bug players as long as the narrator is conscientiously trying to make for interesting play.
At least that's been my experience. If you try it may way, and have problems, let me know.
Mike
Powered by hypermail