thread: 2010-06-14 : A Bit of Hardcore
On 2010-06-23, Rafael wrote:
Mauro: If you mean explicit communication: the player doesn't know if the master is saving his character[...], 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?
It depends on the details, and the boundary between explicit and implicit is subtle. Sticking to the PC death example: We start with the implicit assumption that the player would rather that the character didn't die. Suppose that, in a given situation, the player would accept his character's death. If he, in the critical moment, says "feel free to kill me", that would cost immersion. If he, in that moment, reports the thoughts of his character ("I make my peace with my gods"), that's pretty explicit but still pretty immersive. If his character says "I will lay down my life to save you", that's semi-explicit (maybe the character is lying) and doesn't damage immersion at all. If the players know that the situation is coming at the end of the previous session, then they can discuss it fairly openly, as players, without immersion issues ("fairly openly" because they still wouldn't say "you don't have to fudge the die rolls this time"). Note that in no case would the player state his wishes after the die roll, because that would just make the role of fudging too obvious. :)
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?
The techniques I mention above could be applied to groups of strangers, but of course they work less well. I can believe that non-traditional games are better at generating good play from less intimate groups, especially in the light of the "social bullying" issues that Jesse mentioned. That would indeed be an advantage.
