Michael Cule:
> This is my problem with the whole 'narrative game' thing. If the system
> produces ridiculous results how the galloping Norah am I supposed to
> make my players feel as if they are there and involved in the action? If
> their reasonable decisions for dealing with the situations they find
> themselves in can't be modelled with the system how can I make them feel
> the game is worth playing?
In a narrative game, my point is you can hardly blame 'the system' for producing ridiculous results -- the question is, if such are produced, why did you you chose game mechanical tools from the set provided (and the larger set you're implicitly mandated to 'wing') that would _produce_ ridiculous results? Now, you may counter that this means the game is very much in the hands of the ref., and very explicitly so, so if the players' don't have confidence that she is handling it sensibly, then presumably they won't. Pretty much true in any game, but true in a more 'in yer face' manner in a more 'storytellingy' game.
The worst possible way to play HW, IMO, is as a sort of 'narrative simulation'. There's an extreme, if only implied, example of this early in the book, somewhat bizarrely: playing the 'AP game', and then adding on the 'narrative' as a sort of running commentary, _after_ the situation has been resolved 'by the numbers'. Really, what's the point? Played that way, it's effectively just a bad simulation, not a narrative game at all.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail