thread: 2005-11-14 : Dangerousness
On 2005-11-16, Charles wrote:
I know the feeling. Even just from doing theory, not from playing the games well designed off of theory, I feel that the games I play are using system that is not optimally designed and I wish they worked better (were better designed).
However, optimizing really big things is really, really hard (and I haven't even played around with optimizing small games), and optimizing things in progress is even harder, so we both continue playing our respective really big thing games in unoptimized form. :(
Interesting to hear that less frequently hasn't meant less powerful.
I promise I'll write more sometimes soon, this outbreak of discussion has happened to correspond with my work being crazy busy.
This makes MDS go "Optimization would not be easy"
Considering the household game Charles, it would be hard to optimize the system we use since we don't really use a system and what little of one we do use would need an awful lot of work.
With that though, Ars Magica is not a good system for how we use it. This came up just last night as I was discussing it with Jake. He asked "Do your mages know spells?" The answer was "Yes, but we don't use them. We use the noun and verb." As it turns out while there are these spells people know a small minority of them are cast regularly off screen and the others are known for eccentricity stake or to be less flippant are known to sort of "stat" our characters so we know more about there backgrounds. Sure Mage X is probably never going to use the 'Turn rain into a rain of pebbles' spell in game but it says something about the character and where their research is. In play you just see noun+verb=effect, however Noun Y at 7 and Verb Z at 11 doesn't say as much about ones character as 'turn rain into falling pebbles'.
I could say more, but that would get into random Ars Magica babbling (which I've already entered) but will save it for when Charles is over to chat about. Excuse this inexcusable use of Marginalia space.
This makes CS go "system v mechanics"
Technically (in a lumpley sense), we do have system, just not so much mechanicy mechnics. I thnk both our system and our mechanics could use optimization. As an example, the issues surorunding the power of third monkey and the issues around what Sonata and Ilba were capable of doing in relation to third monkey were weakened by a lack of system support. The obvious solution would be some form of fomral mechanicy mechanics for those powers, but I don't think that is the appropriate solution for our game. We employed some of our informal meta-level mechanics (Barry specified before game that the Monkey was powerful and should not be easily defeated) and in game (we discussed what info Sonata could gain while inspecting Ishkin), but overall the system support for that scene felt distinctly weak.
On magic in our game, Sonata definitely uses at least one of her written down spells routinely on screen (change into a flock of birds), but we do tend to use improvised magic and narrative fiat most of the time (narrative fiat is much more powerful than AM improvised spells allow!)
I think this is valid use of marginalia, although I think it might be better discussed on the known world site, where our fellow players might be more likely to see it.
This makes MDS go "Shhh..."
The less our fellow players know the more narrative fiat will get abused. Oh, wait...
This makes KM go "Fiat?"
Except I feel hampered because I don’t have a very good idea of Perdix’ capabilities, being spell-weak and theory-heavy, so I consistently hold back when it comes to magicking up both quotidian stuff and conflict, and I really need to work on that since my mouth puckers at the thought; and anyway we’re supposed to be keeping these to one sentence long, so.
This makes MDS go "Shhh..."
The less our fellow players know the more narrative fiat will get abused. Oh, wait...
