Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4993636" data-attributes="member: 18280">If the events in the &quot;game&quot; don't matter, we call that a &quot;discussion&quot; or &quot;shooting the breeze&quot;.This is a &quot;framework&quot; into which game events must fit.This could be a game, or it could be shooting the breeze, depending upon what is actually done.For example, if the game is about preserving your humanity in the face of this horror, there must be some means of quantifying humanity, losing humanity, and (possibly) regaining humanity through the choices you make.&nbsp; Moreover, one of the following must also be true:(1)&nbsp; The players do not know aforehand the conditions that can cause one to lose or gain humanity (very, very hard to set up, as this would seem obvious), or(2)&nbsp; There is a second victory condition at odds with the first, so that the interplay becomes one of coming to a satisfying resolution of seemingly mutually contradictory objectives.&nbsp; I.e., preserve your humanity while also taking out a particular machine gun outpost.Both scenarios demand that some victory condition may fail in order for a game to exist.&nbsp; You might lose your humanity; you might fail to take out the machine gun outpost.&nbsp; You might fail in both.&nbsp; It should be difficult to succeed at both in order to make the exploration meaningful.Within this game, the outcome of the framework story is not in doubt.&nbsp; It does not have to be.&nbsp; However, the outcome of the story of the game is in doubt.&nbsp; It must be, or there is no game.Again, there is a difference between the story of the game and the framework story in which that game takes place.&nbsp; Certainly, they may be permeable (the framework intrudes on the game, obviously, and the game may well intrude upon the framework, depending upon the abilities of the PCs and NPCs to affect wide events).As an example of the game story intruding on the framework, imagine a game where the exploration is &quot;What will Batman sacrifice to stop the Joker from detonating a nuclear bomb in downtown Gotham City?&quot;&nbsp; The game is set up so that Batman has opposing victory conditions of (1) preserve your humanity and (2) stop the Joker.&nbsp; In order for there to be a game, it must be possible (however unlikely) for Batman to fail in either, or both, victory conditions.Imagine then that Batman fails.&nbsp; The GM has two options:A.&nbsp; Allow the framework to intrude on the story:&nbsp; The bomb turns out to be a dud, Superman swoops in and saves the day at the last minute.B.&nbsp; Allow the story to intrude on the framework:&nbsp; The bomb goes off and Gotham City is no more.&quot;A&quot; risks nullifying the player's input into the game (and therefore the player's investment in the game).&nbsp; &quot;B&quot; risks changing the framework so much that the players again lose investment.Whether you favour &quot;A&quot; or &quot;B&quot; is, of course, a matter of taste.&nbsp; Whether or not you can fail within the story of the game, however, is not.&nbsp; It is the thing that differentiates a game from a discussion (or collaborative story telling).RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4993636, member: 18280"] If the events in the "game" don't matter, we call that a "discussion" or "shooting the breeze". This is a "framework" into which game events must fit. This could be a game, or it could be shooting the breeze, depending upon what is actually done. For example, if the game is about preserving your humanity in the face of this horror, there must be some means of quantifying humanity, losing humanity, and (possibly) regaining humanity through the choices you make. Moreover, one of the following must also be true: (1) The players do not know aforehand the conditions that can cause one to lose or gain humanity (very, very hard to set up, as this would seem obvious), or (2) There is a second victory condition at odds with the first, so that the interplay becomes one of coming to a satisfying resolution of seemingly mutually contradictory objectives. I.e., preserve your humanity while also taking out a particular machine gun outpost. Both scenarios demand that some victory condition may fail in order for a game to exist. You might lose your humanity; you might fail to take out the machine gun outpost. You might fail in both. It should be difficult to succeed at both in order to make the exploration meaningful. Within this game, the outcome of the framework story is not in doubt. It does not have to be. However, the outcome of [I][B]the story of the game[/B][/I] is in doubt. It must be, or there is no game. Again, there is a difference between the story of the game and the framework story in which that game takes place. Certainly, they may be permeable (the framework intrudes on the game, obviously, and the game may well intrude upon the framework, depending upon the abilities of the PCs and NPCs to affect wide events). As an example of the game story intruding on the framework, imagine a game where the exploration is "What will Batman sacrifice to stop the Joker from detonating a nuclear bomb in downtown Gotham City?" The game is set up so that Batman has opposing victory conditions of (1) preserve your humanity and (2) stop the Joker. In order for there to be a game, it must be possible (however unlikely) for Batman to fail in either, or both, victory conditions. Imagine then that Batman fails. The GM has two options: A. Allow the framework to intrude on the story: The bomb turns out to be a dud, Superman swoops in and saves the day at the last minute. B. Allow the story to intrude on the framework: The bomb goes off and Gotham City is no more. "A" risks nullifying the player's input into the game (and therefore the player's investment in the game). "B" risks changing the framework so much that the players again lose investment. Whether you favour "A" or "B" is, of course, a matter of taste. Whether or not you can fail within the story of the game, however, is not. It is the thing that differentiates a game from a discussion (or collaborative story telling). RC [/QUOTE]

Verification