Re: Re: Scenarios

From: L C <lightcastle_at_...>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:37:33 -0400

Matthew Cole wrote:

>- as I understand it, gamism and sim can work together.

Assuming you buy the theory, not really. Both gamism and narrativism will eat sim alive if the mechanics support it, I would think, since "sim" was always described in that theory pretty much as "not the other two". Anyway, we've beaten the theory part of this to death, anyway. ^_^

>> We have cathartic experience of these problems in our gaming group.
>LC: I don't even know what this means.
>- it means that we've struggled to adopt narrativism at the table and
had to
>fight against our sim baggage. It's been a fairly painful process.

Ah. Well, I'm glad that was a process you all wanted to go through, presumably since you weren't having fun before.

>For example (and this is not all with me running games, it's with two
>narrators in the same group too):
>When we got HW we played it just like we were playing RQ3 and had no idea
>why we were experiencing problems. This carried on until one of us started
>reading game theory and found out that we were confusing our agendas, that
>HW was designed to be a story game instead. I'm not saying this fixed
>overnight but it did show us that we needed to change our modus operandi.
>This change is still ongoing and has been pretty hard (hence the
>aforementioned catharsis in the learning curve).

I can see where you are coming from.

>You are not everyone.
>- are you implying that I'm in the minority? I'd like to think so but from
>what I read online in terms of people's struggle to do so, I find that
>to believe. I've observed that most people opt out of any game theory
>discussion altogether.

Well, yes. Most people want to play a game, and being told they are playing an inferior game (and are possibly inferior people) because they haven't embraced total narrativism is off-putting. But really, all I was trying to say there was that it isn't usually a good idea to go "I found this hard/I enjoyed this" and assume everyone else will have the same difficulties/preferences.

>- re-readings this (I did re-read it at the time) I hear how it sounds. my
>"the people" in that paragraph includes myself

Don't beat yourself up on it, really. :)

>- yes it does sound like that doesn't it? thanks for bringing me up over
>that point, again. I don't think that HQ2 is the one true way; I don't
>that everyone should like it or they are crap. FWIW there is no one
true RPG
>way; no game system is all things to all men; sim is a perfectly
>persuit (which I enjoy myself). And, I really do not enjoy debates on game
>theory - they give me the willies.

Well, that's because lots of the people obsessed with it are crazy people. *grin*

>- however the things we saw in HW-HQ2 are new ways and do cause issues
>approached with more established assumptions.

Oh, absolutely. It is definitely a different approach to structuring a role-playing game, and one I've enjoyed.

>- I do not speak for the designer(s) of the game

I know. He's quite happy to post here from time to time.

>- simulationism is not heresy

Good to hear. (Would also be good if that word ever got properly defined, but that's neither here nor there.)

>- moving from traditional style games to new ones did scare and confuse my
>old RPG brain

Fair enough.

>- nobody seemed to not understand the representations of HQ2 offered
>- it was only my own opinion that the inclusion of stats worked
against the
>spirit of the game system

Well, not really, since that IS the future way products (at least Gloranthan products) will be presented in the future.

>- I was only trying to help people see that it won't be as bad as all that
>- I don't believe that HQ2 requires any conversion of published material
>- MRQ has all it's own published material

Yeah, but it has all the awesome Second Age stuff.

>- I'd hoped to suggest that nothing needs to become more difficult.

Hey, I'm with you. I think this method far easier, personally.

>I'm sorry to have caused to passionate a reponse - I was only trying to

I know, and I don't think anyone was out of line on either side. I've seen flame wars, and this was no flame war. I just thought it had reached the point where you were talking past each other.


Powered by hypermail