Notes from the Lab

I used to not think much about what kind of gamer I was.

Then I thought I was a narrativist. After all, I very much enjoy strong stories in rpgs, and far prefer that my rpgs follow story-logic and produce satisfying stories than that they have a consistent worldview or have cool fiddly bits for me to play with.

But...I'm not. The thing is, while I -do- think story is important, and love it when the gameplay results in a strong story...that's not why I game.

If I was primarily interested in producing a strong story, I'd use a more efficient method than gaming. Maybe I'd write short stories; maybe (if I really wanted collaborators) I'd try collaberative writing instead.

Instead, what I primarily want to do when I'm roleplaying is exactly that—roleplay. At least, in "actor" (ie, player) stance. I want to get into character, and just play; interacting with other players, who are also playing in character, and with cool stuff happening. I don't really have a strong investment in what kind of story is generated, nor am I focused on maximizing my ability to influence that story. Nor am I interested in competition—with the universe or the other players, except as a means to an end. Instead, my focus is on creating an environment in which I can roleplay, and in roleplaying that can produce interesting and fun results.

Because, in the end, -this- is my focus—the roleplaying and it's surroundings; -not- the story (it should be cool...but I think the rules and play should take care of this; I'm happy having the GM having the lion's share of contribution to this, as a player or as a GM), -not- the mechanics (which I think should get out of the way so I can have my play), I'm technically a simulationist.

I don't feel like a simulationist. I'm not interested in realism, except as a means to an end (that of not breaking the illusion—bare consistency). I'm not interested in exploring systems—at least, not in rpgs; that's one of the things that board games are for. But in the end, most Nar games fall down for me as a player, for one reason: because they pull me out of the form of play I want to be engaging in—playing my character—and force me to engage in some other activity instead.

This is why Everway is going to be one of my favorite games for a good long time—and one of the few I run at least until I manage to come up with a "good parts" game that uses the bits of Everway I like best while adding enough new stuff to keep things fresh (something I'm working on, off and on).

This is why the OTE core—with our house extensions to make things a bit more cinematic—has been my default system to play for a good long time, and is likely to remain so.

Both systems are extremely simple. Both put the lion's share of the in-play power into the GM's hands. But most importantly, both provide extremely flexible yet inspirational methods of negotiating character abilities during character creation, while not in any real way forcing players to leave actor stance during play—even during task and conflict resolution.

Am I interested on experimenting with new ideas and improving on these ones? Sure. But one thing I don't want to be doing when playing is negotiating stakes. Sure, the stakes of any given conflict—what the character goals are, what the player goals are, etc—is important. But it's not as important, to me, as the flow of conversation that happens in a game that's going well, or the flow of character that happens when one is going brilliantly (or is it the other way around?)