Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => roleplaying theory, hardcore => Topic started by: Michael Pfaff on August 26, 2010, 04:52:30 PM
-
I'm reading back over Vincent's blog, and come across GM Agenda (http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=457) and this part, where Vincent says:
"Here are mine for a couple of my games, from an earlier thread:
When you create a town in Dogs in the Vineyard, the whole point is to find out what the poor players' poor characters are going to do about it. You create a problematic mess, and you're like "oh lord what on EARTH are they going to do to put THIS mess right?" You don't plan out a solution yourself - that'd be contrary to the point. In play, you don't try to block or guide the players' solutions - that'd be contrary to the point too. You have your NPCs do what they would do, given all that you know about them, and you let the players do the same with their characters, and you play the dice scrupulously, even generously. Anything else and you'd be throwing the question, you'd be invalidating the whole reason you're playing to begin with.
It's very similar in Storming the Wizard's Tower. When you create a monster, the whole point is to find out how the players' characters are going to beat it, and whether they even are. You create a cool, threatening monster, and you're like "sweet! I wonder what they're going to do about THIS!" You don't plan out yourself how or whether they'll beat it - that'd be contrary to the point. In play, you don't try to block or guide them - that'd be contrary to the point too. You have the monster do whatever it'd do, given its nature and circumstances, and you let the players have their characters do whatever they want them to, and you play the dice scrupulously, even generously. Anything else and you'd be throwing the question. Anything else and you might as well not even play!
I think of those two in particular as a story now instance and a step on up instance of the same GM agenda, the same approach to GMing."
In Dogs..., you play to find out how the players are going to handle situation X, in Storming..., you play to find out if the players can overcome X challenge.
In AW, you play to find out what happens and make AW seem real to the players.
I see three separate instances of GM Agenda, and they correlate to three different modes of play.
Does your game's GM Agenda determine how the game is played? Is AW the "right to dream instance" of this approach?
-
I'm going to say what I've heard said, and what I believe: No game "is" an agenda. There's no "Right to Dream" game or "Story Now" game, but rather, "Right to Dream," "Step on Up," and "Story Now" are agendas that help us understand instances of play over time (I think this is how Vincent phrased it in an interview with Clyde--Theory from the Closet--and it makes a lot of sense to me). So instead of saying "Apocalypse World is Right to Dream," you might say, "man, we're doing some intense Right to Dream stuff with Apocalypse World right now." Again, the categories discuss instances of play over time, not the games, especially not the people (every time someone says "I'm a narrativist" my nerd hackles raise).
All I know is that, at my table, we're getting some great Story Now out of Apocalypse World. It seems like AW would be well-suited for RTD play, but I still don't even know what the fuck RTD play looks like, so I guess don't take that as gospel.
-
Yeah, I'm specifically speaking of Right to Dream, Story Now and Step On Up in the way Vincent is using them in his quote. A game can certainly promote and foster those kinds of "instances of play."
Clearly, when Vincent describes the GM's Agenda in Storming... he does it with the notion that it will facilitate that mode of play over time.
Does AW? Is the GM's Agenda one of the main components?
-
The two crucial considerations when you're analyzing an instance of play for creative agenda are (1) who made decisions at the table, and (2) who the fictional characters were and what they did. A game's design, enacted by the players, contributes powerfully to both; in this way, a game's design contributes to play that fulfills a particular creative agenda.
Apocalypse World's design contributes to play that fulfills a Story Now creative agenda. If you try to play Step On Up or Right To Dream with Apocalypse World, you'll find that you have to fight with the rules all the time, ignore them, recast them, and finally you'll adapt them or throw them out.
Apocalypse World's GM's- and players' jobs (agenda, principles, moves) are a key part of its design, and in that way they, in turn, support Story Now play. What's interesting is that small changes to them could make them support Step On Up play instead. At least, that's the case with Dogs in the Vineyard's GM's- and players' jobs and Storming the Wizard's Tower. I have every reason to believe that it's the case with Apocalypse World's GM's- and players' jobs too.
I'm pretty sure that Story Now and Step On Up play are closer cousins, in this sense, than either are with Right To Dream play. I'm pretty sure that you'd have to adapt Apocalypse World's GM's- and players' jobs substantially to get a game design that contributes to Right To Dream play. I may be wrong about it, but as of this moment, it's my considered belief.
-
I knew that the Story Now article was part of the game inspirations because it's listed in the book, but at that time didn't understand why the game seems so Right to Dream to me.
Now that I've read the book entirely (and the first impression was reinforced) and now that Vincent insists on the difficulty of playing RTD with Apocalypse World, I'm very confused.
Vincent, could you point to Techniques and groups of Techniques that specifically produce Story Now ?
I see a lot of Right to Dream design, and I am not alone, do you understand why and correct our judgement ?
-
Sure!
(1) Apocalypse World's techniques keep decision-making at the table in everybody's hands. No one can seize decision-making from anyone else. Furthermore, the game's rules demand decision-making, they don't let anybody coast by without making decisions.
(2) Apocalypse World's techniques (including especially here its character creation and GM prep techniques) make sure that you have passionate characters in an untenable situation, whose only recourse is to escalate through crisis (after crisis) to resolution. If you haven't seen it before, here's an old post of mine on that subject: 5-2-05: Creating Theme (http://lumpley.com/creatingtheme.html).
The simulationist stuff that you see in the game's design - and you're right! There's lots - isn't related to Right To Dream play at all.
-
(1) Apocalypse World's techniques keep decision-making at the table in everybody's hands. No one can seize decision-making from anyone else. Furthermore, the game's rules demand decision-making, they don't let anybody coast by without making decisions.
To me, decision-making is a good thing in any game design, for any creative agenda. You want to have decisions to make about which others can say "how smart!" in Gamism, too. No decisions, no prestige in succeeding. And in Simulationism, in my opinion, the decision power is critical too because if your proposals don't get included in the fiction, you're not creating the fictional material, it is creating itself. How can you enjoy the resiliency of the aesthetic package (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=17334.msg188019#msg188019) if you're not allowed to add to it ? I don't see why decision-making power in everybody's hands make Narrativism.
(2) Apocalypse World's techniques (including especially here its character creation and GM prep techniques) make sure that you have passionate characters in an untenable situation, whose only recourse is to escalate through crisis (after crisis) to resolution. If you haven't seen it before, here's an old post of mine on that subject: 5-2-05: Creating Theme (http://lumpley.com/creatingtheme.html).
I totally follow you on theme, but the passionate characters in untenable situation make also an interesting situation, even without the theme treatment. And interesting situation makes good Simulationism. Sim is not associated to boring and already seen situation, and in fact no CA is, because such a game would have an awfully dull Exploration. Whatever the CA, I want to Explore exciting scenes in a RPG (not necessarily exciting in the sense of "fast action", a heartwarming romance is exciting in its way). Here again, I can't see how this technique makes only Narrativist play.
The simulationist stuff that you see in the game's design - and you're right! There's lots - isn't related to Right To Dream play at all.
Such a sentence bugs me, because to me, Simulationism is Right To Dream. They are two phrases for the same concept. So in my mind Simulationist techniques are techniques that produce Simulationism play more easily (or Right To Dream play). Where did I miss something ?
-
Well, maybe, but whatever. Tell me what simulationism means to you!
-
Nocker,
This post by Vincent will probably fix your confusion: http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=443
Vincent, does that policy from your blog apply here too? I think it's a good policy (although, to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a conversation where talking about GNS made anything clearer or easier).
-
Simon! I have lots to say about that but I don't want to go haring off after it. Start a new thread if you want to? In this thread, for now, I want Nocker - and Michael, if Michael comes back - to tell me about simulationism.
-
Ok, I've read the comment on anyway, and understand now your question, Vincent.
To me, a Simulationist Technique is a Technique which tend to produce RTD games. If enough of this Techniques are present and no other Technique oppose them drastically, the game is sure to be RTD without a big hack.
The Simulationism drive (here, I am no longer talking about Ron's CAs) that a player can have is Exploring exciting situation for the sole purpose of Exploring it. A desire to see what happens when no one put their dirty thematic or competitive fingers in the fiction. And this is often associated with a desire to contribute to the development of this situation, so either a huge place given to the characters decisions or a way for the player to go beyond the manacles of the character and say things about the rest of the world.
I feel this desire and Apocalypse World appears to me as a very good way to obtain this kind of play.
I feel a lot of RTD (And Simulationism, as a player drive) in Apocalypse World. I see no mechanism that is here to answer a theme, all appear to me to develop interesting situations. The freedom associated with decision-making (contrary to fixed fiction changes dictated by dice results) enables all players to contribute to the fiction, and point out what they are interested in. All this is RTD, to me.
I think sincerely that Story Now play is as likely to occur with AW as Right To Dream play, because it's a strongly thematic setting, but the rules don't specifically lead the players to answer it. They answer a theme if they want, and nothing prevent them to do so, neither.
-
Cool! With you so far.
You say you want to explore interesting situations. What makes a situation interesting? Maybe give me an example situation, and tell me what you find interesting about it?
-
In this thread, for now, I want Nocker - and Michael, if Michael comes back - to tell me about simulationism.
I'm back.
Maybe I'm lost on Right to Dream. In fact, after reading your blog on RTD and "badassness" I think there's a serious disconnect between what I considered "sim" or "Right to Dream" (I guess based on Ron's essay) vs. what you're saying it is.
Certainly, under that definition, AW is definitely not RTD (I don't know if any game I've ever played is... not to say it doesn't exist).
Here's where I'm coming from: I'm not playing AW to address a premise or to challenge myself or other players. I'm playing in exploration of the world, situations, characters we develop over time. I'm not too concerned with the outcome of those things (How do the players handle this? or How do the players overcome this?), but rather with the moment-to-moment fiction and development of those things in our exploration. But, within those things, certainly the players will address situation using the tools they have.
The way I'm reading you:
Step On Up - Players are reaffirmed by overcoming challenges that test their abilities (character/player).
Story Now - Players are reaffirmed by resolving situations and learning how the character/player approached that situation.
Right to Dream - Players are reaffirmed by showcasing their role in the fiction.
And, the GM's Agenda should confirm these things. In Storming, I'm developing a challenge for the players. In AW or Dogs, I'm presenting a situation or a situation is unfolding (due to AW's mechanics and MC fronts).
I'm not really sure what a GM Agenda would look like in RTD...
-
Interesting situations :
Inception : the interwinned timelines of the dream levels, with characters having different challenges on different timings.
Matrix Revolution : the car chase on the highway, sometimes driving in the opposite direction. Jumping on and out of cars, fighting in the small space of a cab or on the top of a moving truck, the twins passing through car body.
Capes : a über-cool super-hero named Le Duc, with formal suit and cigar getd out of the car stopped in front of a residential house. "The kid, Aaron, he should be here", he says to his driver, looking at a paper with a picture and data. Then his enforcer, a three meters humanoid crashes the door open and enters the house. But the kid's mother, Miss Python, is already in the rear garden with him, and tries to escape with her serpentine agility. An omniscient man, Zimmermann, looks at the situation, reading Le Duc's thoughts to discover his agenda. But Le Duc, supernaturally nifty, shoots in the dark alley where Zimmermann believed to be unseen and seriously hurts him in the shoulder. Aware that the gunfire is attracting unwanted attention from the neighbours, Le Duc takes his cigar out of his mouth, blows the smoke and drops a bit of cinder. When it touches the ground, a spark emerges from it and runs to every lamp post around, shutting it off.
Scion : a scion of Artemis wearing leather and fighting with a scoped hunting rifle, named Selene, is running after a man. She begins to take vertical paths to get to him. She is so fast she seems to walk on the walls, and soon she is set up on the edge of a building roof, and sees the man through crosshairs. He doesn't see her anymore, and thinks he is safe, staggering from breathlessness. But then Selene's finger pull the trigger and in a loud crack, the head of the poor guy is spread on the wall behind him. Selene hook the rifle on her back, and jump from the building, slowly walking away.
Selfless (a game from the Reverse Engineering challenge on Story Games) : a man, kept in a psychiatric hospital, tries to remember his own name. The heartless doctor argues that he is named Sebastian, showing the records, but the depths of his mind, he knows that this is not right. Same that this is not friday but tuesday, contrary to what the assistants maintain. He has counted the days since his arrival. This is a big plot to make him really mad, so that they have a good reason to keep him.
Shock: : a mutant super-hero teenage girl with strong telekinetic powers hunts down some other mutants into the sewer. After several corridors and bends, she arrives in a big drain room, where dozens of mutants held hands in circle. And in the center, a skinny woman with empty eyes sockets who is levitating one meter above the water. She recognizes her mother.
Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies : the ship is boarded by savage men. A Kirin Gifted man, armed with a chain jumps from the high bridge on a rope, runs along it and leaps right in the middle of five savages. He swing his chain, teleports behind a savage who nearly hit him, knocks him out and rush to the next one. In twenty seconds, the five of them are unconscious and the man warps near the captain to protect him.
Tigres Volants (a french pulp science-fiction game, with elves, psis and dog-headed men) : the band organizes a huge improvised concert in an old hangar, gathering in it all the local population. They create a stage and plug their instruments in the outdated sockets. Then the rock music begins! The elf singer jumps into the audience and swims it. The electrokinesist keyboard player has the idea to add colours and sparkles to the show and starts using her psionic abilities. Long lighning bolts of red, blue and yellow electricity ride in the charged atmosphere. Finally, the fuse blows and all the hangar is silent several seconds, before the stampede begins.
I see it as a mix of dynamism (meaning either fast-paced or rich in outcomes), originality, emotionality, maybe skilled characters (or just active characters), with none being mandatory, and one being able to offset the lack of others by being very powerful. So that a very original but less emotional and dynamic scene is interesting, so is a strongly emotional but less original and without dynamism scene.
It's just a guess, because I've never seriously thought about that before.
-
To understand completely my examples selection : I've chosen not to include situations where my interest obviously comes from theme or thematic choices. So I show only situations where the interesting elements are not related to theme, or so I think : you can prove me I'm wrong and all interest comes from theme.
-
Those are great! For sure, Apocalypse World loves to help you create scenes like those.
They're straightforward character- and situation-exploration scenes. Scenes like these are the mainstay of any kind of cool, high-energy, actiony roleplaying, whatever the creative agenda.
More later. Does this make sense meanwhile?
-
Yes, this make sense.
But I'd argue that if the purpose is just to Explore Character and Situation, then isn't it pure Right to Dream ? I mean, yes you can have great Exploration in Story Now, but this isn't enough. If all there is is pure Exploration, we're in RTD.
-
Right on, but you have to look at the scene's purpose in context, not just scene-by-scene. The purpose of that scene in Matrix Revolution isn't just to be exciting, but to advance the plot by revealing, escalating and resolving conflicts between the characters, right?
-
Right, but conflicts are the meat of Situation (a Situation without conflict would be pretty tasteless, and no player would want to Explore it), so escalating is just Exploring more Situation, by letting it spread onto several conflicts or scenes. So in my opinion, even in the purpose of reveal, escalate and resolve conflicts, it sure can be pure Exploration, and so Right To Dream play. Conflicts are exciting.
I'm not sure, but are you trying to tell me that a bunch of conflicts makes Story Now ?
-
Not just any bunch of conflicts, but a passionate character (at least one) in an untenable situation, escalating conflicts through crisis after crisis to a final resolution, yes. That's the "story" in Story Now. The "now" is "...and we all do it now, live, at the table."
-
Not just any bunch of conflicts, but a passionate character (at least one) in an untenable situation, escalating conflicts through crisis after crisis to a final resolution, yes. That's the "story" in Story Now. The "now" is "...and we all do it now, live, at the table."
Right, but this could be Right to Dream also. It depends on how we approach that "story", right? If we're approaching it with an end-state in mind (to reveal how much of a badass we are) that's Right to Dream, as far as I'm trying to understand it from your blog, and if we're approaching it with a question on our mind (how do they handle/overcome this?) then it could be Story Now or Step On Up.
Right?
The actual "scenes" don't really matter, but what we're trying to accomplish with the scenes, which could escalate through crisis after crisis until final resolution.
-
Yes! If we have something other than a passionate character untenable situation etc, it's not Story Now; that's one way. If we don't all do it together and live at the table, now, it's not Story Now; that's the other way. If we approach it with an end state, not just in mind, but decided, then we aren't all doing it collaboratively at the table. Somebody already did it, and now we're intent upon making it so, not upon making our own thing. Consequently, it's not Story Now.
Now this is important! We don't have enough information to decide whether it's Step On Up or Right To Dream instead, or zilchplay. All we can conclude so far is that it's not Story Now. I'm inclined to leave it that way, at least for now.
So to draw this back to the point of the thread: if we have a passionate character in an untenable situation, escalating through crisis after crisis to resolution, and we're all doing it now and live together at the table, it's Story Now. Having exciting scenes that explore character and situation is just part of roleplaying, and could be contributing to any creative agenda. The fact that Apocalypse World's rules help you create exciting scenes that explore character and situation doesn't mean that it's not a Story Now game; the fact that Apocalypse World's rules help you create passionate characters, untenable situations, escalation, crisis and resolution, live at the table, DOES mean that it's a Story Now game.
Nocker, Michael, make sense?
-
...the fact that Apocalypse World's rules help you create passionate characters, untenable situations, escalation, crisis and resolution, live at the table, DOES mean that it's a Story Now game.
Nocker, Michael, make sense?
Yup. I dig.
-
I don't get it :
Are you saying that a Right To Dream play mandatory involves either 1) dull characters (nobody would chose such a PC), 2) plain and reasonable situations (nobody would initiate such scenes), 3) no escalation (straight resolution, without exploring the back and forth), 4) no resolution (infinite question, nothing achieved), or 5) that the fiction or part of it is established before play (all established parts aren't rpg) ?
Not only it portrays me Right To Dream with a very sad and static tone which I think it doesn't deserve, but also it puts all the interesting Roleplaying in Story Now (because I can't imagine an interesting fiction, whatever the Creative Agenda, with one of the above conditions unmet. If you have an example, my ears are open)
-
The point of Right To Dream and Step On Up play isn't interesting fiction. They don't want or need this passionate-character-escalating-situation crap.
Here's a fact about creative agendas. Ben Lehman pointed it out to me a few years ago. Most people, in their roleplaying histories, have pursued one creative agenda, sometimes fulfilling it, sometimes not. When they encounter the idea of creative agendas, they look to find their diversity in their own roleplaying history, but it's not there! There's only one there. When they finally encounter the realities of another creative agenda, they react with active rejection: "but that's not fun. Really, really no. Why would anyone do that? Is that even roleplaying?"
GNS is a theory of why other people roleplay. People you couldn't stand to play with (that's what "incoherent creative agenda" means). What are they getting out of it?
Your version in particular, Nocker, "but this puts all the interesting roleplaying under Story Now. There's nothing fun left for Right To Dream!" just shows that you love Story Now, and you're just now, this minute, encountering the realities of other creative agendas. You're the one saying that Right To Dream play doesn't sound fun. I'm only saying that Right To Dream play cares about something other than, y'know, creating a story now.
-
I don't get it :
Are you saying that a Right To Dream play mandatory involves either 1) dull characters (nobody would chose such a PC), 2) plain and reasonable situations (nobody would initiate such scenes), 3) no escalation (straight resolution, without exploring the back and forth), 4) no resolution (infinite question, nothing achieved), or 5) that the fiction or part of it is established before play (all established parts aren't rpg) ?
Not only it portrays me Right To Dream with a very sad and static tone which I think it doesn't deserve, but also it puts all the interesting Roleplaying in Story Now (because I can't imagine an interesting fiction, whatever the Creative Agenda, with one of the above conditions unmet. If you have an example, my ears are open)
Not at all. I think he's saying that if the conclusion is foregone, then it's not Story Now. Some people play 4th Edition D&D this way. They know the heroes are going to win. The DM sets up challenges that almost give the players a challenge, but really they don't. They're set up for the players to win (nearly every battle) over time - more to showcase how badass the PCs are and how cool it is win they win the day and save the world. The game mechanics are clearly designed for the DM to pre-plan interesting, compelling, thoughtful and intense encounters. But, it's almost a foregone conclusion whether the PCs will engage those encounters and whether the PCs will overcome those encounters.
The characters aren't dull (hopefully), the situations aren't plain and reasonable (the DMG gives awfully good advice how to set up fantastic encounters), there is escalation and back and forth (options like "Second Wind" give this), and there is certainly resolution (kick some ass, save the girl).
But, we're not playing to find out what happens or create the story - the story is already there. We're playing to showcase how we go through it. The cool powers, interesting tactics, witty quips, and general badassitude we can summon to save the day.
-
In 4E (given that it's the coherent Step On Up game that everyone says it is; I haven't played it) but in 4E, the story exists as a backdrop to the point of play, which is how well you play the goddamn game. I'd expect to hear things at the table like "Dammit, Mitch, you're being the worst fighter in history tonight! Why am I carrying your ass like this?" and "Mary, that was TIGHT. Keep that up and the DM's going to cry home to his mommy tonight."
Saving your sister the princess from evil in 4E is like saving your sister the princess from evil in a video game: it's flavorful, it contributes to the fun, it may even be a driving tactical consideration - "sorry guys, I know it'd be easier if I could go along with this, but I'm not gonna. We fight, we don't torture! I'm a paladin!" - but you aren't hoping for gripping fiction from it.
If someone in the group goes haring off after gripping fiction, that guy's an asshole who broke the game and doesn't know how to roleplay and you don't invite him back next week.
-
In 4E (given that it's the coherent Step On Up game that everyone says it is; I haven't played it) but in 4E, the story exists as a backdrop to the point of play, which is how well you play the goddamn game. I'd expect to hear things at the table like "Dammit, Mitch, you're being the worst fighter in history tonight! Why am I carrying your ass like this?" and "Mary, that was TIGHT. Keep that up and the DM's going to cry home to his mommy tonight."
That's how my group plays 4E. But, notice I said "some people". I've read on various forums and I get the impression that some DM's design the encounters for the PCs to win. They feel bad about the PCs losing - and most PCs will fight to the death rather than lose an encounter.
So, if you're not setting up real challenges for the PCs, but instead giving them "obstacles" you know they'll overcome (and fudging dice to make sure it happens), then certainly that's Right to Dream, aye?
When I play 4E, I roll dice in the open and even tell my players often times what the monster or bad guy's challenge rating (XP value and level) and give them an opportunity to learn the powers and vulnerabilities of the enemies. This gives them the full story - they know what they're up against and I'm not going to fudge the dice. This is what I'd consider Step On Up. Can you beat this challenge I put up for you? Because I'm not going to help you in the sense of fudging dice or whatever. And you certainly hear that at the table, "Come on guys! Focus fire! Remember our strategy!" Etc...
But, I don't think everyone plays 4E that way. And, it's certainly possible for the system to drive for Right to Dream play (as far as I'm understanding it...).
Saving your sister the princess from evil in 4E is like saving your sister the princess from evil in a video game: it's flavorful, it contributes to the fun, it may even be a driving tactical consideration - "sorry guys, I know it'd be easier if I could go along with this, but I'm not gonna. We fight, we don't torture! I'm a paladin!" - but you aren't hoping for gripping fiction from it.
If someone in the group goes haring off after gripping fiction, that guy's an asshole who broke the game and doesn't know how to roleplay and you don't invite him back next week.
I agree we aren't hoping for gripping fiction (in Step On Up), but it can happen (at my table). It's just typically not from the system and more from the players at the table and the situations.
But, yes, I've been one of those assholes who broke the game in someone else's 4E game, shooting for "the fiction" instead of the "next encounter" - and I eventually stepped down from the game.
-
With you!
Here's an interesting question, though: is it Right To Dream, or is it debased Step On Up?
If the GM is jumping everyone through his preplanned storyline, hoping for gripping fiction, is it Right To Dream, or is it debased Story Now?
My vote is: the latter, in both cases, unless it's serving as a backdrop for something else.
-
With you!
Here's an interesting question, though: is it Right To Dream, or is it debased Step On Up?
If the GM is jumping everyone through his preplanned storyline, hoping for gripping fiction, is it Right To Dream, or is it debased Story Now?
My vote is: the latter, in both cases, unless it's serving as a backdrop for something else.
Right on. But, what if the players WANT that?
They want to go through the hoops and see this story unfold that they are taking part in, they want to see how badass their characters are when they take down the enemies (knowing the DM will fudge if their characters' builds suck or they make a bad decision or the encounter happens to be too hard or whatever), and they want to win every time (maybe come close to losing once or twice - after all, we want it to be heart-pumping action - but never lose).
The DM knows this. The players want this. So, it's all a big example of "We want to be badass. Please make this happen for us."
It's only debased if everyone's not on the same page, right? Or, am I totally off it.
-
No thoughts on my last post?
-
Oh, well sure, that's "the backdrop for something else" territory. Jumping through the GM's preplanned hoops and my guy's a total badass, sure, yeah.
-
Yeah, beating a six year in basketball is fun too, but I'd say it's a debased version of basketball. :) That's fair.
-
Oh, well sure, that's "the backdrop for something else" territory. Jumping through the GM's preplanned hoops and my guy's a total badass, sure, yeah.
If Right to Dream and Step On Up are showcases in instances of play, how can there be a "debased" version of a game. You're saying in one breath that the system can only help to develop a particular instance of play, but really the instance of play is what makes it Right to Dream or Step On Up.
Yet, you're also saying it's possible to play "debased" versions of these. Meaning, the system intends for you to play Step On Up, but we're playing Right to Dream instead.
I just don't see how those things are compatible.
If we're all playing to see our characters be badasses, and the GM is ensuring this with victories over mooks and monsters. Isn't that Right to Dream? How can it be debased Step On Up if the system doesn't necessarily have a CA.
@Chris - The basketball analogy doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not talking about setting up a 4E encounter that's too weak.
-
That's not what I meant.
An example of debased Step On Up would be if we're there to play to see who'll win, and the GM lets us win. An example of debased Story Now would be if we're there to create a story, and someone insists that we play out their preconceived story instead.
A preconceived story is a perfectly good backdrop for seeing who'll win, or for whatever else we're there for, except if we're there to create a story instead.
-
That's not what I meant.
An example of debased Step On Up would be if we're there to play to see who'll win, and the GM lets us win. An example of debased Story Now would be if we're there to create a story, and someone insists that we play out their preconceived story instead.
A preconceived story is a perfectly good backdrop for seeing who'll win, or for whatever else we're there for, except if we're there to create a story instead.
Right. I understand that. But, I'm not talking about an example of players who want to see who'll win. Or, vice versa.
In my previous post I wrote:
"The DM knows this. The players want this. So, it's all a big example of 'We want to be badass. Please make this happen for us.'"
If you used 4E to play like this, wouldn't that be Right to Dream?
-
Yes!
-
Yes!
Ok! Thank you. Lol.
That's what I thought. I think I'm getting it now. That's a big difference of Right to Dream than I originally envisioned.
-
That's what I thought. I think I'm getting it now. That's a big difference of Right to Dream than I originally envisioned.
Agreed, and awesome!