Do upu really think these things are incompatible? It is quite possible to run a campaign where things occur for reasons, yet at the same time nice twists are added for drama's sake. I've never found the two to be incompatible. Assuming of course we are talking about a reasonable level of both and not deliberately trying to break suspension of disbelief.
> Now, this next point drifts away from the whole "Gloranthan Truths" topic,
> but here's why I run my games as Adept says he does:
>
> If a GM is in the habit of doing things because they add a neat dramatic
> twist, or for color, or comic relief, or any other "MGF" reason, it REMOVES
> the reality of cause and effect from the world. The ultimate power of that
> GM's Glorantha becomes the narrative taste of the GM.
>
> "So what?" you ask, "As long as the game is fun?"
>
> In response, I say two things:
>
> 1) In such a game, what is the point in any player character wondering about
> the motivations of any NPC, or attempting to determine the root causes of
> ANY problem? The root causes of EVERY problem in such a game are "because
> the GM thought it was cool." For example, consider the bizarre Balazar(?)
> weather patterns mentioned on the digest recently --caused by an
> interventionist GM who didn't want the PC heading off that way. Why would a
> player in that game think it was a good idea for his character to start
> trying to figure out what storm god was angry with him?
>
Because it is not a black and white issue. It is quite possible to add dramatic twists and then go, hmmm okay how does that fit into my world picture. 99% of the time, I find a way to make it compatible with my world pretty much straight away, the other 1% of the time I have to think about it for a day or two. Having a nice framework for why things are happening is great and adds to a campaign, but if your framework is so rigid, it can't handle a dramatic twist or a dose of MGF, then you aren't roleplaying, you're simulating.
As well, the situation you mention really has nothing to do with MGF or
adding dramatic twists, it's an example of a GM who doesn't know how to
direct his players subtly or when they ignore subtle direction, go with
the flow that the players are putting on the game. Ascribing poor GM
practices
as an example of GM narrative tastes ruling the roost doesn't support
your
argumanet at all IMO.
> 2) In such a game, how can any player or character take pride in
> achievement? How can you know, for sure, that it was your Yelmalion's hard
> won Light of Inner Purity 5W2 feat that enabled a last ditch resistance to
> the giant gorp? Did the GM think that this made a handy excuse not to kill
> off the central character too early in the quest?
>
It's never worried me, either when playing or GMing. What is the real
difference
between a GM writing an adventure and saying 'Hmm the best light based
character
is Mike's and his character has Light of Inner Purity 5W2, I'll make the
bad
guy about 10W2 with his Foul Soul feat and Mike with some help from his
mates
and quick thinking should be able to beat him" to "Hmm, I made the Chaos
Foe
15W4 with his Foul Soul and now the entire party's getting their butt
kicked
and wiped out, maybe I need to fudge a bit/add a deux ex machina." If I
beat
the monster, then I beat the monster!
Of course a GM should balance things so this doesn't happen all the
time, but
there is nothing wrong with doing it occasionally.
I had a GM who used to use the actual numbers in the Monster Manual for
wandering monster encounters, e.g 30-300 orcs, 3-24 stirges regardless
of what level we were, it did make for some memorable encounters, but it
also killed a lot of us off. Now that was the early eighties, I didn't
particularly
mind rolling three characters up in a day, I do now. Sticking to the set
encounter, because that what you wrote because that's what your
framework
is is way to rigid for my tastes.
> No doubt, running a world is harder than running a narrative.
>
> But the rewards can be great. If I may once again polish my own apple, let
> me point to the Gaumata's Vision scenario from RQ 3. It is not a narrative.
> It is a free form. It's "plot" grows from a few actions, extrapolated
> logically given the time, place, and magical nature of those involved. The
> right characters walking into it can bust it wide open in a few hours, but
> most may completely fail to get "hooked" by it, and LOGICALLY will have to
> live with the consequenses for a generation or longer.
>
> I should imagine that GMs who let narrative fiat enter their games have a
> lot of trouble running games like that, where mysteries and "detective" work
> play a part.
>
Actually not at all, it's just a matter of making a decision of
balancing
narrative fiat against your world framework. My personal taste is for
a bit of both, if we as characters take on things that are clearly
too tough for us and we die, so be it, but if there is no warning or
we just get particularly unlucky, well a bit of narrative fiat goes a
long way in my opinion.
Hero Wars and Glorantha are clearly biased towards the narrative end of the spectrum, live with it and make your own decisions about the facts you need if you want to roleplay down the simulationist end of the spectrum.
Martin
Powered by hypermail