RSS

10 by 10 room

A tumblelog about games! Because an orc has a pie. And we love pie.
Recently: Daniel Solis on about online mixtapes...

April 9, 2006

From the White Wolf LJ: The Violence Is In Your Voice It points to a rather crunchy discussion of depicting gritty & colorful combat, which is probably of use if you’re a major WW player currently. I found the post itself interesting:

Somewhere, here and there, I think each of the World of Darkness developers has written an example of how to use the Storytelling combat system to fuel and inspire your narration of action rather than dictate it. The Storytelling combat system gives you some particulars, but it doesn’t usurp the Storyteller’s voice for what a particular fight should look, sound or feel like. Don’t let combat rolls and successes tell you what to do. It’s your story. The system works for you. You decide what the numbers mean. You decide what four successes of firearms damage looks like in this fight, tonight.

On one hand, there could be a valid criticism that this puts of onus of depicting a gritty combat onto the Storyteller’s narration, rather than in the results of the system. (And I’d be concerned that some of this is chalking it up to the GM’s discretion to gloss over the less helpful results of the system in order to get the gritty combat results in the story.)

That said, this is a clear statement of what you should be expecting and contributing when interacting with the WW system, and in that respect it’s really helpful. WoD combat relies on a steady hand from the Storyteller/moderator, and playing without such a role will result in more irregular results in your stories.

Also, consider: “You decide what four successes of firearms damage looks like in this fight, tonight.” This actually is true in lots of games; for example, is it really worth considering what a Strength 7 really means in Sorceror (or how much you can lift with a 7d6 in Dogs in the Vineyard)? It’s good not to get caught up in looking for real-world analogues that aren’t there, when what’s really needed is a group consensus about how story power is reflected in the fiction.

January 4, 2006

“I think if it were printed on cheap paper and spiral-bound, those Forge kids would clamor up and down and call it revolutionary and a step forward in rules for story-telling, even though it’s been around forever.” – Clinton R. Nixon (Forge co-founder) grabs Pendragon 5th ed (by White Wolf)

December 29, 2005

“If this isn’t the most brilliant thing ever said about playing role-playing games, I’ll eat my shoe.” Clinton comments on Rebecca Borgstrom’s paper, “Structure and Meaning in Roleplaying Game Design”.

I just read it last night, and I recommend it. Some long words, yeah, but actually well-paced and (to me) clear. Let me quote the part that got CRN so excited:

This paper views gaming as a computational process.

Gaming is work, in the sense of effort over time. That work takes the form of processing the raw data—-the set of possible stories applicable to the story’s premise. The players generate additional structure until a single story remains.

Structure is stuff that whittles down the possible stories down to the one that the players end up telling.

I also appreciated reading about her Fair Folk book, and seeing how the in-game structure of the surreal faerie world was to some extent a justification of making those metagame structural problems amongst players now explicit, and under the domain of the rules.