thread: 2011-02-21 : Into the Unknown?
On 2011-03-22, David Berg wrote:
Yeah, fair enough, 2 games may be a bad idea. It's just frustrating to take the limits I've imposed on the player-side design and let those restrict the GM side too. But maybe there are options I haven't considered. An example might help. After GMing Apocalypse World for 3 sessions, I do not see how the Basic Moves get me to look at NPCs through crosshairs; could you explain that one?
As for "what it's like", dude, I'm writing in the rules right now, "No diet Dr. Pepper!" More seriously, this isn't a LARP, so I think "what it's like" is best understood via choices, not sensory input. Making decisions based on what your character knows has a unique feel to it when the knowledge gap between you and your character is as small as possible. That's something I'm sticking with. I'd like to explore your suggestion of designing to produce outcomes that match with my insights, but I'll be doing it within those limitations.
That said, if you catch me over-limiting myself, please call me on it!
Insights
I gave you the boring ones because those are the only ones that underlie the game's current rules. The menu of what could underlie new rules is certainly more interesting.
As for RPG practice, I think I've been expressing how I think Delve should be played plenty already in this thread, so let me instead try for a real-life dynamic that gets explored in play.
Analogous to how "argument loser tends to throw first punch" in Dogs serves as a way to ask, "So, this time, will you?", Delve has:
When a technology is immediately useful, people tend to employ it regardless of long-term risks or moral dubiousness.
It's always fun to see where my players draw the line on wielding cursed items, chugging monster secretions, ritually sacrificing bandits, etc. I don't want the whole game to revolve around that, though...
As for our recalcitrant Dad example, I guess I could say, "Trauma victims will block out the trauma until promised a way to deal with its source," but (a) research could probably tell me whether that's true or not, and I haven't done any, and (b) that "insight" seems highly specific to this particular example, and I'd need another insight to cover the corrupt imperial lieutenant who's starting to question whether he's in over his head doing deals with a sinister cult.
Finally, on curiosity, I agree with Made to Stick: "Broken expectations and small, identifiable gaps in knowledge are the best incentives to become curious."
