bladerunner_35
Warrior
Hej.
Nedan är ett inlägg jag gjort på rpg.net (samt ett annat forum) för några minuter sedan. Jag är även intresserad av vad rollspel.nu har för kommentarer kring frågan. Jag har valt att klistra in inlägget i sin helhet utan att översätta det. Jag hoppas att detta inte verkar arrogant.
First of all, the purpose of this thread is mainly to give Me new insights, practical and concrete advice and perhaps even an eye opener or two. I am not looking for a lengthy debate establishing the “best” way of gaming.
Right, so with that out of the way; this is something I’ve been pondering quite a bit without reaching any real conclusion. I guess that in practicality it is just a matter of taste but I thought I’d throw it out there to see what people say. Please bear with me if this comes off as an in cohesive rambling...
In general I consider myself a traditionalist when it comes to tackling roleplaying games. I always get slightly nauseous when a game suggests that the game master is anything other than a neutral arbitrator of the rules. Of course this only goes so far and to a certain point everything is just a fiction of someone or other’s imagination. However, an established rules set is there as a leverage between the players and the all-powerful game master. Sure, he can make stuff up but he is essentially bound by the same rules that govern the player characters, at least in theory. For me, this is something good.
I want the consequences of my characters actions to impact the world which in turn reacts and so on and so forth. I want the game master to interpret this action-reaction line of events in a logical way, within whichever system we’re playing. I don’t want the game master to just make things up as we go along because it suits the mood, drama or three part story structure. For me this breaks immersion and let on that we are playing a game.
I can feel that I am rambling so I’ll try to cut to the chase:
Lately I’ve been feeling that perhaps this simulation of real world events, the action-reaction kind of deal is not only cumbersome (to an extent) but likely to get in the way of having a gay ol’ time. Isn’t the story more important?
At the same time I hesitate to approach roleplaying with drama and story first and foremost in my mind. Especially when considering long-term playing the feeling of consequences are essential to credibility or buy-in and generates a breathing living world, experienced through the eyes of your breathing living character.
For me these contrasting perspectives come to a head when contemplating adventure design. I am currently creating a small sandbox horror adventure and am unsure whether to create a time line with major events taking place at “day three, ten and fifteen” or if I should just keep a number of “dramatic” events on hand and throw them at the players whenever the time seems right?
I could go on but think I’ll stop there, hopefully someone gets what I am after.
Thank you for taking the time to read time.
Nedan är ett inlägg jag gjort på rpg.net (samt ett annat forum) för några minuter sedan. Jag är även intresserad av vad rollspel.nu har för kommentarer kring frågan. Jag har valt att klistra in inlägget i sin helhet utan att översätta det. Jag hoppas att detta inte verkar arrogant.
First of all, the purpose of this thread is mainly to give Me new insights, practical and concrete advice and perhaps even an eye opener or two. I am not looking for a lengthy debate establishing the “best” way of gaming.
Right, so with that out of the way; this is something I’ve been pondering quite a bit without reaching any real conclusion. I guess that in practicality it is just a matter of taste but I thought I’d throw it out there to see what people say. Please bear with me if this comes off as an in cohesive rambling...
In general I consider myself a traditionalist when it comes to tackling roleplaying games. I always get slightly nauseous when a game suggests that the game master is anything other than a neutral arbitrator of the rules. Of course this only goes so far and to a certain point everything is just a fiction of someone or other’s imagination. However, an established rules set is there as a leverage between the players and the all-powerful game master. Sure, he can make stuff up but he is essentially bound by the same rules that govern the player characters, at least in theory. For me, this is something good.
I want the consequences of my characters actions to impact the world which in turn reacts and so on and so forth. I want the game master to interpret this action-reaction line of events in a logical way, within whichever system we’re playing. I don’t want the game master to just make things up as we go along because it suits the mood, drama or three part story structure. For me this breaks immersion and let on that we are playing a game.
I can feel that I am rambling so I’ll try to cut to the chase:
Lately I’ve been feeling that perhaps this simulation of real world events, the action-reaction kind of deal is not only cumbersome (to an extent) but likely to get in the way of having a gay ol’ time. Isn’t the story more important?
At the same time I hesitate to approach roleplaying with drama and story first and foremost in my mind. Especially when considering long-term playing the feeling of consequences are essential to credibility or buy-in and generates a breathing living world, experienced through the eyes of your breathing living character.
For me these contrasting perspectives come to a head when contemplating adventure design. I am currently creating a small sandbox horror adventure and am unsure whether to create a time line with major events taking place at “day three, ten and fifteen” or if I should just keep a number of “dramatic” events on hand and throw them at the players whenever the time seems right?
I could go on but think I’ll stop there, hopefully someone gets what I am after.
Thank you for taking the time to read time.
