This one is about personal playstyles than game design, but still using the analytical tools of theory - (GNS, GDS, re/pro active player, immersive or actor stance ect) and game choice.
I play for immersion. The absolute best times I have had at roleplaying games are when I loose myself completely in my character; that when the game session ends I blink and say "oh yeah, that was a game". Now for me, that is easier than many others -I play solo campaigns with the wife in addition to group play, and so scenes that may be embarrassing or verboten in a group I can play without problems solo.
As a playstyle I tend to be re-active. That is largely, I think, due to the fact that I play superheroes, in a classic sense, and so much of the genre is all about re-acting - a clue shows up, the bad guys robs something, someone turns up dead, and then the heroes get involved. But that is something I am comfortable with. Put me in a world and say "go ahead, do what you want" and I would feel lost and at ends.
Looking at rules, I'm of the camp (pure Sim here) where I think of the rules as the physics of the game world. They tell me how my character can interact with the game world. Once I know those rules, I know how those physics work, and I never need to consciously think about them again, and just worry about in character stuff, and being Immersed. This leads to a number of rather interesting things, and I think it explains some rules lawyers fits (I used to be one way back in the day).
As I mentioned my wife GMs me in solo games, so there is a higher level of GM trust there than in just about any other Player/GM relationship. Now she is amazingly creative, and has something of a Nar approach. Now years ago (we've figured out how to deal with it now) - I'd be playing and something would happen and my complete instincts are "There are no way in the rules you can do this" and a heated discussion would ensue... just like any rule lawyering. However, once I'd done my analysis I realized that that problem wasn't about me trying to make some munckin power character - part of my immersion comes from knowing the "game rule physics" and when something happens that I, as a player, know that cannot be done in the rules of the game, it breaks my immersion, and casts the entire world in doubt. Suddenly thoughts of "does this work this other way" and "can my character do this" start happening and I'm thinking about rules not character again.
I personally think that many of the "bad rules lawyers" are doing things this way, and just not realizing it. When they know the rules, and they see the GM "cheating" it breaks their suspension of disbelief, but not understanding why they just lash out with "You can't do this by the rules!"
This attitude also really influences what kind of games I look at and enjoy. Rules light games have so much GM mandate - as they don't have actual rules to cover everything - just set my teeth on edge: I never know where my character stands in the world - it's like physics breaking down around every corner. And a lot of Forge based / Indie games I have problems with. They come up with innovative mechanics or approach that focus the game on those things rather than on character (Capes is a good example, a single character immersionist like myself just doesn't want to switch character roll).
No comments:
Post a Comment