thread: 2010-06-14 : A Bit of Hardcore
On 2010-06-19, Jesse Burneko wrote:
Rafael,
I wanted to address the few points you said to me directly. First I want to mention that the game I play are pretty consistent in tone and subject matter. It's not like I have a game that starts out as a comedy heist film and suddenly turns into a deadly serious spy thriller. So I'm not sure the "art film" comparison is really apt. Though I'd say my games probably resemble stuff you see more in written media such as novels and short stories which are a bit less formulaic than most typical Hollywood blockbusters.
The reason for the consistency in tone is because usually the only thing the system is really "deciding" is the resolution of points of tension. The real people at the table still have to setup those points of tension and they still have to decide the consequences of the outcome. So there's still lots of room for human creative input.
Your point about mooks is very interesting and worth attention of its own that might illustrate something about the design of the games I play. I never use mooks. Why? Because mooks aren't about real tension. They're about exposition. They exist SOLELY for the character to "show off" what they're capable of. Since there exists no real tension there's nothing to resolve. Since there's nothing to resolve there's no rolling of dice at all.
For example, if I were running a big battle scene with hundreds of guys the REAL point of tension is between the PC and likely some other really important named NPC on the other side. I wouldn't bother with the hundreds of guys fighting the battle. We'd narrate a moment of the PC hewing his way through the battle field until he reached the named NPC. Then we'd fight the battle between the NPC and PC using the raging battle around them as narrative color that justifies certain actions. But otherwise, mechanically, its as if the other guys just don't exist.
You asked about "superiority." I think that depends on your creative goals. A hammer is a superior tool if I want to hammer nails and a pretty lousy tool if I want to wash my dishes. If all you care about story content being present in the game and you're not too picky about who is generating it, how it comes into play, what is and isn't acceptable material then, no I don't think it's a superior tool.
I DO think that the more you want the *process* of play to generate story (rather tagging along in the GM or some other player's story) the more tools like the one's found in Vincent's games become "superior." Since you already linked to one of my Play Passionately articles, did you see the one I wrote about adversity and emotional safety?
I think the tools we've been talking about here increase in "superiority" as the content of play becomes more and more emotionally unsafe. To pick an extreme example imagine we were playing a game where the PCs were homicide detectives tracking a serial killer. As GM I decide that the killer has decided to target one of the PC's 10 year old daughter? Do you really want me "fiating" whether she lives or dies?
If I fiat AGAINST the player and kill the girl for sake of drama then I dis-empower the player to have a chance to do anything about it. If I fiat on the side of allowing the player a "heroic rescue" then the risk/tension was never real. I'm pulling my punches for the sake of emotional safety and it was just a psychological trick as you put it earlier.
I don't want to have to make that call. I WANT to play with emotionally charged and unsafe material but I don't want to be personally responsible for the emotional safety of those playing with me. That means we need tools that make sure that everyone involved with this material is adequately represented. I have all the tools to push unsafe adversity with real risk and tension and the player has all the tools to adequately push back such that he feels like at least this was all "fair." Then we roll.
Maybe the girl lives. Maybe she dies. But because we played it straight and fair no one feels *socially bullied* even if they feel emotionally hurt. It's the content of the fiction that hurt them, the way a good tragic movie can hurt you, and not the social environment around the table that hurt them.
Jesse
