----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Hall"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: GM: Fiction again
> Karen J. Cravens wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Tim Hall wrote:
>>
>> TH>I'm not so sure they need to be binary opposites.
>>
>> Not as such, but they're two very separate things. I can't think of any
>> individual rules that affect both, though there might be some.
>
> I was thinking more of complete systems rather than individual mechanics.
>
>> TH>Systems like GURPS or Primetime Adventures represent the opposite ends
>> TH>of a spectrum.
>>
>> Pretty close, yeah. But doesn't GURPS have... uh... some kind of Fudge
>> Point system (I'm blanking here... been too long since I even read GURPS,
>> especially outside the character generation part) somewhere in there? I
>> see that sort of thing as a sort of a safety system on character-can-do
>> rules.
>
> You're probably thinking of the Luck advantage, which works as a sort of
> Fudge Pointish sort of thing (you can reroll failed rolls so many times
> a session). I've never encountered any game that's used this Advantage.
> GURPS doesn't have Narrativist plot coupons as a core mechanic.
>
There are some optional rules to that effect, especially in the current
edition, beyond the Luck family of advantages. Most of these burn the same
currency used to develop characters (i.e., XP/CPs); this often impacts the
decision on the average given out per session...GURPS is struggling to make
peace with the more cinematic end of the spectrum, but it will never be
"Narrativist". And most of us who play it prefer it that way, if only
because we don't like some gol-darned whippersnapper fresh from some liberal
arts college tellin' us how to play a game!*
*(Full disclosure: Poster survived a VERY liberal arts college... :P )
>> TH>I'm sure it's possible to design a game that reaches a workable
>> balance
>> TH>between the two approaches. But you have to recognise there's a
>> tradeoff
>> TH> going on, otherwise we'll end up brain damaged ;)
>>
>> I still haven't found a workable balance. I *like* character-can-do
>> rules. Outright narrative-can-do rules feel like cheating.
>
> The alternative is behind-the-scenes GM fudging, which is even more like
> cheating. And I'm guilty as hell of doing this; there's a whole scene
> in the Kalyr game on Dreamlyrics which I've been running completely
> diceless, doing things like 'I'll let her succeed at doing that really
> cool psionic combat move without rolling any dice, but she'll catch hell
> later on from the collateral damage. She's getting her money's worth
> out of the Bloodlust disadvantage'.
>
>> But yeah, maybe I'm brain-damaged...
>
> That blog entry of mine was the #1 Google search result for "Ron Edwards
> Brain Damaged" at one point. Got a good comment by Will Mistretta :)
> "The Ayn Rand of RPGs, indeed".
The only rules in this regard I find even remotely tolerable are ones that
_reward_ narrative play, rather than _penalize_ lack of it, or ( forbid) _require_ it...but then, after a
quarter century in this hobby, I'm entitled to be a little crotchety...
--T. M. Neeck
(Feeling old yet?)
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
