Re: The Glorantha Digest V6 #534

From: Brian Tickler <tickler_at_netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 15:16:03 -0700 (PDT)


> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 21:50:41 +0100
> From: "Dom Twist" <thazar_at_globalnet.co.uk>
> Subject: Star Trek......
>
> ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 >
> <Runs screaming into the hills>

Thought that my vision of the type of game where MGM (Maximum Game Morality) overshadows MGF would horrify many, but didn't think someone would lose Sanity on *this* mailing list because of it... :)

> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 06:16:16 EDT
> From: <Kmnellist_at_aol.com>
> Subject: Gaming styles:
>
> << add a Star Trek style moral-of-the-story
> theme to every adventure...then every game session can just be bulging
> with socially redeeming value and valuable lessons...
> >>
>
> I can't see why anyone has to stick to any one particular style. One
> 'session' (I'll not call it an adventure because that narrows down what could
> happen - an adventure is not apt to describe a law debate for example) could
> be a straightforward hack and slash, next could have a moral dilemma, then
> maybe a 'strategy' game where some sort of output has to be maximised (eg
> planning a caravan route, deciding where to take your nomad beasts for best
> grazing/low risk etc), political intrigue, full scale warfare. Why not do
> all of them?

Which, of course, was the point of my sarcasm... :)

I'm no more for 1-dimensional campaigns than I am for 1-dimensional cults...

> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:58:19 +0200
> From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_wanadoo.fr>
> Subject: Brian's Bandwidth Utterings
>
> One of the characters in my Seshnelan campaign is an Errol Flynn type
> Loskalmi. And we use blasphemous RQ-type roolz, *plus story-telling
> stuff*, to *simulate* his actions, and great fun it is too! If
> storytold combat were "utterly worthless" as you declare, the RQ
> roolz combat I'd have to
> run instead would be utterly booooring ...

So you run your game with "storytold combat"...then, months and months later, when your players have run through all the silly little ways to say "I try my damndest to hit him with my weapon" and start repeating themselves, you're basically back to square one...

Here's a few to keep things fresh longer: 

"I'll feint with my sword high, then kick his legs out from under him..."
"I'll duck under his next blow and disarm him with a spinning forearm..."
"I'll taunt him into charging at me, then use his own momentum to toss him
of the wall..."
"I'll swing my axe, trap his sword momentarily when he parries, and clonk him on the head with my shield..."
"I'll somersault between his legs, jump up behind him and garrote him to death before he can react..."  

Eventually, you can fall back on my favorite, which should work most of the time:

"I'll wait for him to try something stupid, dramatic, or unorthodox, then gut him like a fish..."

(yes, this is all exagerrated and sarcastic...) :)

> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 16:10:25 +0200
> From: Mikael Raaterova <ginijji_at_telia.com>
> Subject: And your idea of storytelling is... ?
>
> What do you think a storytelling game-style is, anyway? Rules-free
> dice-less make-believe?

No, it's rules-lite make-believe, with dice to try and make event outcomes seem like they're not completely and utterly under the GM's control at all times... ;)  

> >The typical ploy, eh, to take anyone who prefers a few actual rules and
> >label them simulationists or wargamers?
>
> Grow up, Brian. Respond to what i write, and not your own misconceptions
> about storytelling game-styles.
>
> I haven't called anyone a simulationist or a wargamer (i did call Steve
> Lieb a *ruleplayer*, which is a quite other thing). Nor have i advocated
> that fewer rules or no rules at all is good thing. I like rules and game
> mechanics that are geared towards the experience of the game-world, instead
> of obstructing that experince. It's quite irrelevant whether the rules are
> few or many.

I was genuinely confused by this paragraph, so I went back to look for some reference to the term "ruleplayer", but all I could find was:

> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:00:18 +0200
> From: Mikael Raaterova <ginijji_at_telia.com>
> Subject: HW vs RQ, sort of

>

> The problem, as i see it, with RQ's 'combat-friendly' mechanics is that
> they're not designed to evoke drama, excitement and heroic action. Most of
> the fun and excitement in RQ combat situations is dispersed by having to
> focus on keeping track of numbers. The intention of RQ's mechanics is to
> simulate combat situations, and so the *simulation* itself hogs most of the
> player's attention which should be reserved for the *situation*. I'd say RQ
> is combat-hostile; combat situations shouldn't be an exercise in tactics
> and strategy, but an experience of dramatic action. But then again i'm not
> a wargamer.

Powered by hypermail