thread: 2010-06-14 : A Bit of Hardcore
On 2010-06-23, Josh W wrote:
Thanks for that Rafael, and I'll be interested to hear more whenever you can.
One interesting underlying choice underlying that is presumably that the GM confirms the impressions that the player has about how things will go? In other words if the player starts anticipating a big battle, then the GM will give him one, rather than pulling out a ceasefire? In other words the player character's planning and moral decisions, where they include assumptions that were not previously stated, are broadly confirmed. Is that right? I imagine if the GM does contradict this, he is expected to "sell" the changes in terms of plausibility given the forms of cause and effect that the players agree with. So if someone is expecting a war because of the pride of the local king, then some other feature of the king?s personality that the players are also aware of is the reason it doesn't happen.
This gives the GM a similar role to old-fashioned story tellers, having final choice of the supremacy of one factor driving the narrative over another: If someone interrupts a story teller to say "but the king was proud, he would not back down before anyone!" then the teller might go into another scene where he says "Ah yes but in the evening before the battle, as he drew up his final plans, one of the generals came to him and told him that the men were weary, and felt their blood was becoming worthless to him. He realised that his strength was the strength of his men, and he would not loose that." and then it goes in to how at the last minute he finds a way to turn it around without loosing face etc.
If you compare that to Simon's way of playing, and it seems more like the patterns of cause and effect are hidden and unknown, rather than where they are suggested and then confirmed or subverted. I don't know if you do play this way, but that might be a part of the difference between your play styles.
There's a third possibility too, which is something I love shadowrun for; first you plan, creating the setting semi-collaboratively by active searching, then the GM looks at what you have prepared and looks for flaws, and then when you play the mission it is subverted just enough that your improvisation skills are extremely tested, with a margin of safety/outs to avoid total wrecking. The thing I love about this style is that you play out the planned section of the game twice (or more), once as you expect it to be, and once as it actually is (and nest that for twists and turns during planning etc). This is similar to how I guess you play, but rather than being sold the changes in a way that smooths you into them, a compromise of expectation, GMs blindsiding players and then them working out what's going on is a big part of the fun.
One thing I would caution when people talk about mechanics that do not spoil "the story", is that spoiling can be pretty relative; if you don't like certain stories, then certain mechanics tailored to those stories will leave you cold. And even more importantly, playing those games and trying to push them along with your standard habits could lead to frustration of both types of story.
Mauro, I would be cautious about suggesting that it is the goal and not the mook killing that is important: Ever watched an action film with the sound off? Probably not, but with many of them it hardly lessens the experience at all. They are visual kinetic things, and the mental visuals of a game can be just as good although sometimes they need support in that which some Sim engines can provide. Now mostly they do it badly, because people didn't actively seek out that goal, but I'm sure you can find games that provide detail to random mook attacks that makes things very interesting.
