Why I dislike Sigil and the Lady of Pain

[pemerton]

IMHO this was not simulationist but rather narrative.

Yes. It was used to try to contrast high-concept simulationism with narrativism.

To me simulationist means that every facet of the world is done through the game rules. Things such as your creating a new rule on the fly are not simulationist to me, in a simulationist game the killing of the tiefling would have been played out by the standard combat rules.

What you're describing here is (in Forge terms) purist-for-system simulationist play.

Are you saying the difference between" high concept" and "narrativism" is primarily mechanical?

<snip>

If there hadn't been a time pressure would you have minion-ized the tiefling?

I think mechanics can be important, but are a secondary issue - you can play narrativist Rolemaster (I know, I've done it) but you will find some of the action resolution mechanics getting in the way.

The rationale for the roll-to-minionize (which I see as an application of page 42) was that the real conflict here wasn't a combat one. The ingame time pressure from the collapsing temple wasn't a factor, but the real life, at-the-table fact that we were focusing on the escape rather than a combat was a big factor.

The lack of page 42 or comparable mechanics in Rolemaster is one of the ways its action resolution mechanics can be sub-optimal for narrativist play, where - at least as my game works - keeping the conflicts in mind is important (because if you don't, you can get caught up in all the mechanical minutiae of a game like 4e or Rolemaster).

I interpreted your scenario to be faithful to the "raiding the old temple" archetype by having the temple collapse when the ritual was stopped Indiana Jones style.

And you've set up a thematically interesting opportunity with this evil tiefling guide (or whatever adjective is right), which different PCs would have different attitudes toward.

Of course you're right that the collapsing temple is a genre piece. But what, for me, marks the contrast between narrativism and high concept simulationism, is that the genre piece is a backdrop against which the players do their thing, rather than the point.

Is this where you see the spectrum idea coming in?

Alignment may be part of that conversation but it seems much less important than (a) evoking a "we've got to get out before the temple buries us" sense of urgency, and (b) having the players wonder/debate what to do with the tiefling.

For me, once (b) is the focus, and alignment/genre conventions are not governing the answer to it, you've started to move from high concept to narrativism.

Particular systems or settings don't prevent any of the "agendas" being pursued - especially if they are modified by "houserules" and so on to fit the playing group's style better (a process called "drifting" on The Forge).

I'm a big fan of drifting! (Although I think the drifting required to run narrativist 4e is very very minimal.)

 

[Balesir]

I'm a big fan of drifting! (Although I think the drifting required to run narrativist 4e is very very minimal.)

I would say I'm a fan of minor drifting; if the "drift" becomes several sheets of closely typed houserules deep, I'm wondering why I don't just start with a different rule set!

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], fair enough! I prefer drifting which can happen via a table consensus in approach - which is how my group drifted RM to narrativist play. (The many, many pages of closely typed houserules weren't to support this drifting, but to turn RM in all its glory from a kit for building an RPG into an actual RPG.)

 

[Quickleaf]

I think mechanics can be important, but are a secondary issue - you can play narrativist Rolemaster (I know, I've done it) but you will find some of the action resolution mechanics getting in the way.

Now *that* is an accomplishment!

Of course you're right that the collapsing temple is a genre piece. But what, for me, marks the contrast between narrativism and high concept simulationism, is that the genre piece is a backdrop against which the players do their thing, rather than the point.

Is this where you see the spectrum idea coming in?

Exactly. Backdrop, and the degree it plays in your adventures, influences the nature of conflicts and themes that players are likely to interact with. Having a high concept doesn't preclude players having freedom, it just means the backdrop exerts a strong pull on the game, presenting a bandwidth of themes/choices rather than a smorgasbord.

I would say planescape has an extremely strong backdrop to the point that it is almost it's on character, as embodied by the lady of pain. You'd expect to see portals, Sigil, exploring the outer planes, competing philosophies, afterlife themes, and so forth in a planescape game. However the bandwidth of player choice within that context is quite vast IMO: the PCs could be heroes from the prime material world, they could be jaded planewalkers, or some mix of the two, they could be embroiled in faction politics, they could be mercenaries in the blood war, etc. Why is their quest important to them? Which portal do they step through? How do they restore their sense of wonder? Which side do they take in the kriegstanz? Is there such a thing as the lesser of two evils? What can change the nature of a man?

Planescape is about these questions but it's up to the players to answer them (or to ask their own questions).

For me, once (b) is the focus, and alignment/genre conventions are not governing the answer to it, you've started to move from high concept to narrativism.


I'm a big fan of drifting! (Although I think the drifting required to run narrativist 4e is very very minimal.)[/QUOTE]

 

[pemerton]

Now *that* is an accomplishment!

Thanks! Although it's actually not as bad as it sound - RM's PC build mechanics give players a lot of scope to express theme and develop their PCs over time, and it's action resolution mechanics give players a lot of points of decision-making where metagame priorities can be injected. (In both these respects it's very different from that other well-known purist-for-system game Runequest.)

For me, once (b) is the focus, and alignment/genre conventions are not governing the answer to it, you've started to move from high concept to narrativism.

OK, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

This thread took a weird turn...

I also hate the lady of pain for many of the same reasons that Merric mentions. I'd be totally head-over-heels for Sigil if not for her presence.

Who was the writer who invented the lady of pain? That guy oughtta be keel-hauled...

 

[Quickleaf]

Who was the writer who invented the lady of pain? That guy oughtta be keel-hauled...

He was the same guy who wrote A1: Slave Pits of the Undercity, I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City, X1: The Isle of Dread, WGA4: Vecna Lives, ALQ4: Golden Voyages, Oriental Adventures, the Ad&D 2nd edition PHB, the Book of Artifacts, Co-authored the Pool of Radiance game, and worked on several other cRPGs.

This obscure author is David "Zeb" Cook.

And the reports of him being added to the 2001 Origins Hall of Fame are surely greatly exaggerated.

 

[sciborg3]

This thread took a weird turn...

I also hate the lady of pain for many of the same reasons that Merric mentions. I'd be totally head-over-heels for Sigil if not for her presence.

Who was the writer who invented the lady of pain? That guy oughtta be keel-hauled...

Isn't he also the same guy who invented Sigil or at least helped do so? Really, suggesting someone be physically punished for creating a fictional character you don't like...not really sure what is up with that.

Really, Sigil and the Lady are some of the best ideas I've seen come out of D&D in my opinion. But honestly everyone should feel free to change, stat, or remove her in their own games as they see fit.

Again, my opinion, but I'm glad they were creative and didn't just write in some ban on deities entering with no explanation. I think coming up with something inspires people to build on it if they like it and change it if they don't. Creativity breeds creativity, and for that alone Planescape should be commended.

Can't be a contender if you don't enter the ring.

 

[Balesir]

This stuff about the Lady being "superior to gods" and somehow beyond touching I find quite odd - this is not how I have ever seen her. She is just another 'Power', similar to all the rest. The only difference is that she is inside Sigil, not outside. This gives her control of the portals, and a definite "home ground" advantage (just as all 'gods' have on their own home planes). I assume that, although she can prevent a(nother) god passing through the portals directly, if another were to get inside Sigil she would be quite vulnerable, in fact.