|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,156
|
|
Nath (4/30/2008)
The difference is the gamist is playing it as a game (in the same way someone might play a boardgame) with OC win conditions, where as the simulationist/immersionist (those two are a bit tangled) are interested in immersing in setting /mindset of the character. Classicly, gamists play adventurers and simulationists are happy to play normal villagers.
I should have clarified I was thinking in the context of a player-led game (where you're free to choose IC goals to match OOC goals or view versa).
Generally speaking, I still find it hard to see the difference - I don't see why people would deliberately choose to play a character with IC goals that the player can't sympathise with OOC. It's like listening to someone repeatedly punching themselves in the head saying "I wish I could punching myself" - it's hard not to interpret it as a pose.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,156
|
|
H (4/29/2008)
This might also interest you.
http://www.createdebate.com/
It does look interesting - but maybe best left until after the exams.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:41 PM
Posts: 1,327,
Visits: 1,813
|
|
Marios (4/30/2008)
I think this is a positive example of player-lead and story-driven play _don't_ get on well together. I wouldn't be happy blatantly ignoring the basis of the game someone else has turned up to play. Ignoring an IC significant story - on the grounds that you're just not interested OOC - seems as bad as ignoring IC setting material on the grounds that you're just not interested OOC (why should I have to have an opinion on religion just because I want to play an Amunsari? I don't like religion). That's what I think is basically offensive about the Gathering - whatever you do, you're shitting on someone's game, unless you drop out of character and ask each person what game they are there for - the result seems to be that people play in bubbles, which seems to rather undermine the point of attending such a big event.
Is that another way of saying "ridiculing them IC is being an arse"? Which is fair enough, you're probably right. The LT seems to try to be all things to all men, so I think it's acceptable to go there even if you have no intention at all of interacting with the plot. I've never found the plot very enjoyable, particularly in comparison to roleplaying with other PCs. None of which justifies sneering at people who do prefer the plot line to "the other game" whether it's IC or OOC. It's just hard to take someone seriously when they're telling you with a straight face that if they don't do a ritual by 4:00 pm this afternoon the whole world is going to be destroyed and everyone is going to die. But you're right, there is no need to turn disinterest into disdain.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,156
|
|
Matt Pennington (4/30/2008)
Is that another way of saying "ridiculing them IC is being an arse"? Which is fair enough, you're probably right.
I think the image that leaps to mind is poor disenfranchised players being bossed around by Authoritarian Ref - but the reality on the ground seems to be much closer to insecure, young roleplayer getting slapped down by confident, older roleplayer. If it was an avowedly player-lead game, then it would be clear that they'd _paid_ for the privilege of getting slapped down and failing to do so wouldn't be "being a nice guy" it would be "being a coward" - everyone's money should be equally good. If it was an avowedly story-driven game, then it would be "being an arse" (it still leaves you space to "have a different take" on the story-plot, but that's distinct from just deciding to ignore its existence).
Matt Pennington (4/30/2008)
The LT seems to try to be all things to all men, so I think it's acceptable to go there even if you have no intention at all of interacting with the plot.
It's a real pain - it's like half the people have been invited along to a gentle picnic and the other half have been invited to hardcore paintball game. If you mercilessly shoot people in the first group, you're spoiling the game they paid to play in good conscience - if you _don't_ mercilessly shot the people in the second group, you're spoiling the game _they_ paid to play in good conscience. It's not a format that invites investment.
Matt Pennington (4/30/2008)
It's just hard to take someone seriously when they're telling you with a straight face that if they don't do a ritual by 4:00 pm this afternoon the whole world is going to be destroyed and everyone is going to die. But you're right, there is no need to turn disinterest into disdain.
It's an unfortunate situation, but I can't get over the fact that I'd be quite unhappy if I bumped into someone at Maelstrom and they showed that level of disinterest with regards to whatever setting element. Characters that play against the norm can be disheartening in aggregate as the novelty values diminishes rapidly - but far worse is players who choose to play as if inconvenient norms didn't exist and don't need responding to. It's an assault on the suspension of disbelief necessary for that game in the way as deriding ref plot - in each case the player pretty much has no option but to walk away before you laugh/ignore their game to pieces (or kill the paradigm-offender's character - unfortunately 'suspension of disbelief' is harder and more fragile than 'disbelief').
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Overlord
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:17 PM
Posts: 1,481,
Visits: 3,868
|
|
Matt Pennington (4/30/2008)
It's just hard to take someone seriously when they're telling you with a straight face that if they don't do a ritual by 4:00 pm this afternoon the whole world is going to be destroyed and everyone is going to die. But you're right, there is no need to turn disinterest into disdain.Amen to that brother. In the LT my faction recently canvassed a debate about having a joint event with our allies. I suggested having one with our enemies and was politiely told my views were "marginal" and to go to a guild event (which frankly are even less believable in terms of their PvPness)
However the perspective given in the discussion was interesting (and from a friend who i don't think will mind), so I've quoted it below:
I know some people like PvP, and the main events are where you get that. I like small events to be story/plot driven, with problems facing us that are solved according to the mentality and morality of the Faction. I like playing with people with similar mind-sets, dealing with problems that are relevant to my choice of character. That's why we pick Factions to be in after all, its about character choice. You have a joint event with two factions that are actively out to kill you regardless of your background or character and you are destined to have an unsatisfying end to your character's story. In the end, the reason any of us do this is to tell a story and have fun. If/when my character karks it, I would prefer it to be in a cause relevant to the Lions and how I've played the character for 8+ years. Not in a ditch somewhere at the end of a Vipers knife, simply beause he/she's a Viper and they don't care who I was, I was just another Lion. Because in a Viper/Tarantula/Lion event, that's what would happen.
The interesting point for me is that I happen to believe the exact opposite. Far better to have someone care enough about you or enough about your nation to want to stab you up and leave you in a ditch than die and get a make believe burial where all your mates get to mourn you. Or to get the excitement of facing off against players, rather than another set of pre-written adversaries designed for you to defeat no matter how you dress it up and even when you don't get it, they'll be nerfed so that you get your victory. Surely in the twenty odd years of this hobby we've learned how to write better plot than that! But it does just go to show, the man behind the curtain still has an audience who can cover there eyes and pay him no attention.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:41 PM
Posts: 1,327,
Visits: 1,813
|
|
Allen Stroud (5/1/2008)
I suggested having one with our enemies and was politiely told my views were "marginal" and to go to a guild event (which frankly are even less believable in terms of their PvPness)
Lol. When I was very briefly on the Bears plot team none of the plot I wrote got run. People didn't seem to think having the faction leader de facto declare war on the dragons counted as plot. It didn't have encounters...
I know some people like PvP, and the main events are where you get that. I like small events to be story/plot driven,
I think that attitude sums up a lot of the dichotomy of the small event/large event nature of the LT system. A lot of players I knew often used to say "I prefer the small events" Over time I realised I really didn't like the small events - there was no enemies to shiv, no deals to be cut, just pointless monsters attacking the camp. As it happens I think the nature of small events tends to suit the story led game better, particularly when they're faction based. It's difficult to get half decent PvP going in a faction event, in my experience, because it's all allies together. It used to happen in the Vipers, but a lot of them were the sort of players who would have attempted to kill themselves if there was no other PC to attack.
Or to get the excitement of facing off against players, rather than another set ofpre-written adversaries designed for you to defeat no matter how you dress it up and even when you don't get it, they'll be nerfed so that you get your victory. Surely in the twenty odd years of this hobby we've learned how to write better plot than that!
I think there is a significant number of live roleplayers who want that kind of game. And many of them thoroughly enjoy the LT because it serves that game up.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:41 PM
Posts: 1,327,
Visits: 1,813
|
|
Marios (4/30/2008)
It's a real pain - it's like half the people have been invited along to a gentle picnic and the other half have been invited to hardcore paintball game. If you mercilessly shoot people in the first group, you're spoiling the game they paid to play in good conscience - if you _don't_ mercilessly shot the people in the second group, you're spoiling the game _they_ paid to play in good conscience. It's not a format that invites investment.
You can usually tell the difference. I've remember a conversation with one player who said "I don't think any character should die." I found the viewpoint strange but it taught me a lot. No point killing that person's character because they weren't going to enjoy it, and who wants to kill someone who won't enjoy the ride? My general rule of thumb was to push a little and wait for people to push back. The story-guys would ignore you and the PvP guys would come out guns blazing and so generally it was never really an issue. It was just weird when a story-guy would come over to talk to you, usually in the belief that you and he were playing the same game, when in all reality you weren't, you were just in the same field.
It's an unfortunate situation, but I can't get over the fact that I'd be quite unhappy if I bumped into someone at Maelstrom and they showed that level of disinterest with regards to whatever setting element.
This is true enough, but there is no published setting material for the LT. There is however a very long and well established campaign history in which, more or less, the world is threatened with destruction each year. And each year it doesn't happen. Given that people often praise the Gathering for having such a massive back story that is created in play, I think it's reasonable to draw off what you know of that story to create your character. If the world gets threatened every year and still doesn't get destroyed then I think it's actually reasonable to create characters who simply don't believe it when they get told that the world is under threat and at risk of being destroyed. A cynical or doubting character actually seems a fairly reasonable piece of characterization although I would accept that it doesn't fit the style of the game, even though it does fit the setting history. So I think the characterization is fine, I just should have reserved my IC disdain for someone playing the same game I was.
Ironically I think we tend to create characters that are far too credulous in LRP. When the necromancer turns up on Friday to tell everyone that he has a massive army and is going to end the world on Monday if the players don't stop him with the spoon of doom, when was the last time you saw someone say "You know what? I don't think he's got the power - I think he's bluffing." I'm not expecting every character to do this, but in my experience none do, because it's part of the genre that we all appreciate that Acme baddy no 7 can do this despite the total lack of proof because it's the plot init?
How far you use the actual reality of the setting to inform your character is an interesting choice. Gordon Newell has a very funny story about playing his skaven at the Gathering. When he was murdering people in cold blood in full public view, if anyone came over to stop him he would shout "It's all right, it's a monster" and they would go away. I have to admit to finding the story hilarious, even if does verge on "game breaking" but it's an interesting question. If you're playing a inquisitive and curious skaven who has noticed that PCs murder all sorts of people all the time and no-one bats an eyelid "because they're monsters" are you within your rights to take that as a piece of IC knowledge that your character has learned? Can you use people's OOC prejudices about the game as IC knowledge if you've seen them demonstrate those prejudices IC?
Does your *character* see the IC consequences of the OOC style of game you're playing and react accordingly?
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,156
|
|
Matt Pennington (5/1/2008)
No point killing that person's character because they weren't going to enjoy it, and who wants to kill someone who won't enjoy the ride?
I think it's really important to distinguish between signalled intentions and happiness. Obviously, in various situations we have to read other people's declared intentions so that we can engage in cooperative endeavours. That's not at all the same as deciding what will or won't make another person happy - if I say I want to go on a hiking holiday and I pay for it, it's not for you to tell me I can't go because you think I won't enjoy it.
There's a crucial distinction between cooperation and paternalism - I'm all in favour of cooperation and dead against paternalism (when it's sincere I don't think it's desirable because I don't think anyone else is going to be as informed about what an individual wants as that individual - more generally it comes across as a way to trade someone else's freedom of action into the illusion of personal altruism - "If we were to play a game of chess, _I_ would decide whether it was in your best interests for you to win or lose and see to it that the game was resolved accordingly").
In this instance, it seems fairly clear to me that you mean cooperation but generally when these come up people seem to jump back and forth between "I consider what the other signals that they want" and "I consider what I decide the other player needs" as if the tw | | | |