thread: 2009-05-07 : Explaining the Right to Dream

On 2009-05-15, Alex A. Biral wrote:

Hi here, People! New poster here on your blog (found it through The Forge). Vincent, I can see that you are a little tired of this thread, and probably didn't want to post here anymore. So, I am sorry to ask for you to answer this question, but I want to be sure I understood what you meant.

I am having a little trouble understanding that, in a RtD game, the traits of the characters must not be challenged. If I am understanding correctly, in such games, any kind of trait that might define the character shouldn't be questioned because it would get in the way of the character's "dream".

I have seen a few games like that. I have seen games where players who defined themselves as good got annoyed when one of their actions was shown to have hindered more than helped. I have seem gamers who got angry when their characters, who were supposed to be the most badass in town, or the wisest man alive, or whatever, failed to prove themselves so. So, I think I understand what you mean by this Creative Agenda.

However, there is some play, which I categorized (possibly wrongly) as simulationist, that doesn't fit here very well. For example, a game might not challenge what "good" means, it might be well defined as part of the setting. However, it might still challenge the player to take those actions determined as good. His character's goodness would be challenged by the setting, as the player needs to understand and follow whatever moral code the setting determines.

Such game wouldn't have a Story Now agenda, because the players aren't addressing any premise. They wouldn't be discussing what it means to be good or not. They would be challenged only so that they can feel what it means to be good in the setting.

So, in which creative agenda would such game fall into? It wouldn't be RtD, because the player can't trust his character traits will always be respected. It certainly doesn't look SoU. Am I missing something obvious here?

Thanks in advance!


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":