Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5746501" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't agree. You quoted definition of "dramatic" includedA situation or succession of events in real life having the dramatic progression or emotional effect characteristic of a playSome plays - perhaps many - are good fiction without being soap operas. My game is in fact not particularly good fiction, and rather soap operatic - if me and my players were capable of generating better fiction, probably we'd be professional writers rather than the academics, financiers, IT professionals and labourers that we are.But the fact that every moment of a play or a movie is dramatic in the sense of "having the dramatic progression and emotional effect characteristic of a play" doesn't get in the way of it being good drama. And I believe the same is true of an RPG.Now, of cousre there is room in the world for movies like Empire, but I personally have little interest in watching them. Likewise with my RPGing - I want it to be dramatic in the sense that you quoted and I requoted.You said this upthread:This suggested to me you saw roleplaying as being at odds with combat, and that you saw simulation as being something that occurs outside combat. I didn't follow either of these ponts. I think that, in D&D but also in some other fantasy RPGs as well, combat is one important place where roleplaying takes place. And I also think combat is one part of the game where the contrast between simulationist and non-simulationist priorities for play can emerge.You may. I don't think you're right, though. There are at least two reasons that simulationist mechanics of a purist-for-system variety can get in the way of dramatic play.First, they make opening and closing scenes hard, because there is no end to the causal repercussions taken, and by definition purist-for-system mechanics have no constraints on their consequences outside of ingame causal logic. Second, they are apt to produce results that are not shaped by the thematic concerns of the story. There is no guarantee, for example, that the battle by a PC with his/her life long nemesis will be more dramatic than that with the nemesis's body guard. There is no guarantee that, when the PC confronts his/her nemesis, s/he will draw upon reserves of fortitude and courage that lesser confrontations do not elicit. Contrast, for example, Relationship augments in HeroWars/Quest, or Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel.It is in order to avoid these problems that games that want to produce a dramatic play experience, but use essentially purist-for-system mechanics - Storyteller, 2nd ed AD&D, etc - have "rules" telling the GM to suspend the action resolution mechanics in the interests of story. I personally agree with Ron Edwards that this is among the most dysfunctional approach to RPGing possible. The whole purpose of "modern" game design is to design mechanical techniques of play that will produce drama (in the sense you quoted and I requoted) without anyone at the table - either player or, moreso, the GM by using rules-suspending force - having to deliberately try to author it.4e has a range of mechanics that deal with the first issue I mentioned. The combat mechanics, including the pacing and decision-making that they force, is a significant component of the total suite of such mechanics.4e relies upon the GM's approach to encounter building to deal with the second issue (it doesn't include player-side elements like Spiritual Attributes or Relationship-based augments, although some Paragon Path powers can push a little bit in this direction). But it gives the GM tools (both mechanical tools and story elements) that make this encounter building very easy compared to other mainstream fantasy RPGs.</blockquote>

Verification