thread: 2010-06-14 : A Bit of Hardcore
On 2010-06-22, Mauro wrote:
What a bunch of new messages! Some short (really, not) consideration about points I think could be focal:
Rafael:
Explicit stakes negotiation (as described in the very helpful Mother May I article) could have avoided that problem, at the cost of some loss of immersion, but doesn't seem necessary if the group communicates well
If you mean explicit communication: the player doesn't know if the master is saving his character (and some games, like D&D 3.5, explicity say to the master to keep that hidden from the players), so he can't be able to know if the master is chosing an outcome he doesn't like; in addition, if the player says "I would prefer my character" this doesn't cost some loss of immersion?
If you mean explicit communication (i.e., the master has to understand what the players want without them saying it), this bring me to a question I'd like to ask to you:
The GM and players know each other well, both through long years of mutual play and non-gaming friendship. This means that the GM has a good sense of how the players think and feel even before the game begins
Couldn't it be an advantage of non-traditional games, that people are able to play them satisfactory also without years of mutual play and friendship?
I'm not claiming, I underline it, that years of mutual play and friendship are not important, and I'm sure they improve also non-traditional games' sessions; but if I know a new friend it would be difficult to play with him, if I need the reading ability coming from years of play and friendship, wouldn't it?
traditional RPG rules, I think, are based on the assumption that what the players want is to feel like cool pulp heroes, which means focusing on "showing off", which is more satisfying if modelled by the rules; just saying "I kill all the mooks" doesn't feel like an accomplishment, whereas if the rules tell you that, after much struggle, you killed all the mooks, it does
The point here is, I think, "Why is he trying to kill the mooks?".
If it's color, he could not care if dice are not rolled.
If it's because he cares for something other than the kills themselves (he wants to save his daughter? he's obsessed by revenge?), it doesn't matter if he managed to kill them, because the focal point is the struggle itself towards that "something other", struggle that is fulfilled whether he kills them all or not.
If it's because he's a cool fighter that definitely would be able to kill them all, dice rolling could be more satisfying, but failing to win the battle could ruin player's fun. And if the master fudges the dice to make him win... the thrill in winning by rolling the dice is because player doesn't know if he'll win or not. Knowing that you'd have win for the master fudging the rolls you wanted to do, that you'd have win despite the rolls, doesn't shrink the satisfaction of winning by rolling them?
My Life with Master, the result of a minion's encounter with his Connection is rolled; it seems incredibly disempowering that no amount of heartrending roleplaying is going to make the little flower girl love you if the dice say otherwise
The little girl can love you also if the roll failed: it's not a Charisma test, it decides if the scene is successful or not. You failed the roll? The little girl does love you, but her father shows up and beats the crap out of you, calling you a monster and carting away the unwilling girl witht tears in her eyes.
Do you see how it works? The little girl does love deeply you, but you failed the scene. Next time? You win the roll, nothing bad happens, and maybe the little girl kisses you.
