Re: A little self-conscious self-defense

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_...>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:47:00 -0000


> In Jeff's earlier example, he said, IIRC that he didn't know, or
need
> to know if Orklar's bull had genuinely been stolen or just
wandered
> off, and it was something that could be determined in play - but
here
> I think he is missing the point in a couple of fundamental ways.
(Bear
> in mind that as this is referring to a scenario that I have not
read,
> my entire knowledge is what is in Jeff's post)

"Orlkar's Bull" is actually a mini-LARP that Neil Robinson and I have run at a couple of conventions. The central question - whether Orlkar's Bull was stolen or ran away is actually completely undetermined and the veracity ends up being completely up to whoever is playing Orlkar. In Australia, some years back, I ran a game for MOB, Andrew Bean and a few others with the same premise. I think Fall of the House of Malan had a few similar conflicts.

As an attorney (and a former prosecutor), I tend to differ with many people's assumption about the relative ease of being able to determine the objective facts associated with a particular conflict. Many times, I don't bother as a narrator to develop a "true" objective statement of facts. I just give the players a variety of biased and conflicting narratives, and let them run with it.

Obviously, everyone's gaming style differs - I'm not saying there is a right answer here. I'm just saying that it is not necessarily advantageous for the narrator to know all the answers.

Jeff

Powered by hypermail