Author: Scott Lynch (---.lieberman-nelson.com)
Date: 05-26-2000 15:18
Heh. That got your attention, didn't it? Relax. It's not as bad as it sounds.
I haven't been reading the _UnderWorld_ forum from day one. In fact, I was initially quite nauseated by the prospect. (Not the setting, but the idea of designing in public. When writing, I hate to even have people watch over my shoulder.) But as I saw that Gareth wasn't designing by committee, that he really was consistently defending the work of his creativity and ego, accepting good advice and beating down bad advice with a big stick, I became more interested.
I have witnessed the recent flame silliness over guns and, to a lesser extent, atmosphere. What I have to say may amount to a jerrycan full of gasoline for the fire. So be it- I accept the risk. It needs to be said.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with violence in a roleplaying game, even in GMS' personal game. In fact, consistently and needlessly avoiding violent confrontation on a metagame level (rather than by in-character roleplaying) would constrain the narrative and weaken it. Violence happens- sometimes, it's unavoidable and the player-characters are forced to do battle to survive. Sometimes, there are other options, yet the player-characters cannot realistically choose them without violating their fictional beliefs and inclinations. IMHO, roleplaying becomes something else when the fictional needs of the characters are subsumed to metagame ideals. (For example, a carnivorous character who suddenly refuses to eat meat in-game because someone at the gaming table is a vegetarian.) It is then no longer roleplaying.
Gareth seems to understand this implicitly. I don't see anything wrong with what happened above- we had a tense action scene (Barricade looms! Little Red Car crashes through barricade! Bullets fly! A very near thing!) followed by a completely appropriate confrontation that clearly established the capabilities and inclination of the bat-winged Bravo.
Some have taken issue with the fact that said Bravo actually won. Boo-f*cking-hoo, and pardon my vehemence. Gareth already said it- a flying, weapon-wielding, avowed BadAss against twelve ground-bound mooks. Abstract combat follows (as opposed to three hours of round-by-round maneuvers and criticals while the rest of the troupe catches up on some sleep) and the Bravo wins fair and square. Now every character will know just what a terrible foe she might be, and hold her in higher esteem. Furthermore, the tension of any future conflict that Bravo enters is going to be raised several notches. Was that victory a fluke? Will the coming battle be the one where she bites off more than she can chew? Who will be the one to finally take her down? When will the troupe's reliance on her armed might go too far, and get them into more trouble than they can imagine? The dramatic fallout from this single fight could conceivably last until the end of the game.
Wow... will you look at that! Violence that furthers the story without absorbing an undue amount of the available playing time. I think Gareth's right on track, and I applaud the first session, even if we only got to read about it in abstract. Carry on, GMS. And bad luck about the tooth.
Cheers,
Scott L
scott.lynch@arcanelogic.com
P.S. If I have come down appallingly hard on reasonable folks and their opinions (Tim Gray, especially. No offense, sir.) rest assured I simply chose to carpet-bomb when a guided missle would have been cleaner. Apologies. No more caffeine for me.
P.P.S. If I have come down appallingly hard on some of the obsequious little jackasses who harp and peck at everything GMS does as though he were being paid to entertain them, good. What we have here is a very solid difference of opinion, and I do not regret my flame. Flame me if you must, and if you give me point-by-point arguments, I'd love to refute them or acknowledge them as your logic demands. I support your right to post your gripes, but I also support my right to be mean to you in turn. Be seeing you.
|
|
