Wulf Corbett:
> Strangely, I never had to switch from a sumulationist view to the HW
> mechanic, only to the HW description (or, in other words, as you
> explained, I have no problem at all with applying sumulationist logic
> to the mechanics of a narrativist flow). The AP mechanic is a
> simulationist mechanic, the only two abstractions are [...]
I largely agree. Lots of the G/N/S jargon chucked around as regards HW misses the point, I feel, even if one is wedded to that particular analysis in the first place.
But to briefly confuse the front lines in this entrenched battle... I think the EC mechanic _does_ support, at least to a degree, an explicitly "narrator stance" mode of resolution, if one chooses to use such elements. That is to say, determination of what happens in the story in the round as opposed to the self-directed actions of a particular character. There was an illuminating thread on this on the indie-rpg.com HW forum; the example in that case was a sniper drawing a bead on an entirely unaware target, which pretty reduces the factors at work to things like Blind Luck, or meta-narrative elements like My Destiny in the World or My Place in the Plot. I doubt these are common in most games though; for one thing, you'd have to have both a GM that liked the idea, and you'd have to have characters with abilities that were appropriate to contests in that mode. (This probably also relates to that other recent thread on what HPs are for.)
> This is where the narrative becomes essential to the simulation (so to
> speak). If an archer is driven to 0 AP, it means he's screwed up. How
> he's screwed up is dependent on how the contest was defined.
>
> a) Archer tried to kill, warrior tries to close. [...]
> b) Archer tries to keep warrior pinned, warrior tries to escape. [...]
> c) Archer tries to pin warrior down, warrior tries to reach cover. [...]
> Except in case 'a' (where a Final Action is about to ruin his whole
> day), the Archer takes no actual damage in there situations. The
> secret is, to define the victory conditions of each contestant at all
> points.
Well, the possible consequences aren't necessarily always going to be evident; if in b) and c) the archer suffers a Complete or a Major defeat, some consequences ought to ensue beyond simply "losing" the target. The rub is that what this is isn't always clear. But there's no need for the consequences to stem directly for the actions of the target, as such (though obviously it has to happen in a way that makes sense in the terms the scene has been narrated to date). "Bowstring breaks" is a small example of this; "archer crushed to death by true dragon unexpectedly crashing to earth on top of him" would be an extreme one. (Though a logical one if the a. just went to -100AP, and the target was using abilities like "Fated by the dragonic powers to become Emperor of the World"...; that would be moving towards an extreme "N" point on the "GNS triangle" (or cube, or non-shape...).)
(Mind you, in such circumstances the archer probably ought not to be making terribly large AP bids anyway, as he's not exactly risking very much, and the benefits aren't necessarily doing to be instantly and spectacularly decisive either.)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail