Gente Che Gioca > Gioco Concreto
Serpente di Cenere: chi me lo spiega?
Rafu:
@Jiituomas:
While I firmly disagree with Moreno about the merits and faults of Serpente di Cenere, I too am baffled (and not a little puzzled) by your conflating "narrativist bent" or "very strong narrativist tendencies" with "a strong GM vision". Would you care to elaborate a little more?
EDIT: crossposted with everybody & their little sister, and now it all looks like a dogpile. Sorry. The question stands, though.
Jiituomas:
Quick points (before I must sleep):
-Domon, the great majority of the most positive feedback has come from places as diverse as Israel, Germany, New Zealand and Italy, not so much from Nordic larpers (although some from here, too). I think that says a lot.
-Mauro: the adaptability is for example in seeing that the game has way more to do about the way people talk about the past, and the influence of that past, than about what has actually happened. The story is very much about the now, and not "pre-written" like Morenao claims. And I therefore consider this to be very narrativist critique, i.e. seeing the "big story" of the past (the cult as it was, and its end) as somehow chaining the "little story" (the point of the game) of people having come through that "big story" and then being for a short while forced to hear very differing opinions on what actually took place.
Most people have seen Serpente as a very open game, especially narrative-wise, but those critics have often seen it as lacking a GM-presented way of making the narrative in it work, and instead see it as either "just talking, not a game" (as in Scotland) or "lacking playability, as it's too restricted" (like Moreno). But those critiques too come, in my opinion, from missing the whole point of the game - the subtleties of interacting with people who do not share your view of what you think is true.
I could "fix" the game for players like Moreno, but that would kill many potential narratives for the sake of just a couple very emphasized ones - or a general chance at creating anything from silence to pandemonium. To write the roles more open would be to kill the core of the interaction.
Moreno Roncucci:
--- Citazione ---[cite]Autore: Jiituomas[/cite]the subtleties of interacting with people who do not share your view of what you think is true.
--- Termina citazione ---
The problem is that every one one of these views is written on the character sheets. Even the tone of voice to use to express these views is written on the character sheets. How this is not "acting a pre-written part"?
If I could, I would have asked "can my character change point of view during the game? Can I change my mind and agree with another character's view? Or we have to represent, again and again, round and round, always the same point of view for the entire game?". I think this is a basic question to ask in these games, and Serpente di Cenere did not had an answer. Murky Design. You can debate if murky design is a bad thing or, in your view, a good thing, but it's exactly this: playing without knowing the rules.
By the way, the answer each player assumed to that question had nothing to do with his or her game preferences. I love changing characters during play but I didn't because I thought that all that text about how it was to be portraited meant that it was an important aspect of the game. Most of the other players did the same.
Mauro:
I think the first thing to do is to separate two different subjects:
- bad design/murk;
- "caged" characters.
The first is related to the uncertainty some people had by reading the rules: they don't know what they could do, which the aim of the game was (elaborate on my own belief, or search a common point, or either or both of them, or something other?); I think, If I'd understood well, this is really a problem in the design, because I think the system/game should be clear from the handbook (here in the forum we had a rather interesting discussion about "What Vampire is about?": no one gave the same reply, and no one gave the reply the author gives in the handbook). If I don't know such a thing, chances are that I spend the time asking "What can I do?", instead than playing what I can do.
This doesn't mean the game is necessary a bad game, it means that maybe the handbook needs some improvement; for example, maybe a paragraph like "Can I change my character's mind during the game?".
The second is more related with players' preferences: someone could like deeply defined character, others my dislike them; but, given it is a reasoned thing, it matter of design choices.
But, about this second subject, I'm wondering: is every possible "leakage" of the character so disruptive? For example, don't saying anything about the way of speaking, or about what one thinks about let's say sex, would create problems? I've only read the game, so I can't evaluate this from real play.
Renato Ramonda:
To (maybe) clarify the 'murk' problem: what a player can or cannot do needs very much to be clarified before playing. Either in the manual, in handouts or in a quick pre-game talk by the GM (facilitator, or whatever).
Tuomas seems to have pretty much confirmed it, in my view, when said that Moreno was "self imposing" limits. There is a huge problem of what's left implicit here. And it's left implicit because, well, it's very obvious to Tuomas, probably. But it's not for other people, clearly.
To me (I have ZERO experience in larping or live events at all) for example many questions would remain open:
[ulist]
[*] Can I add to (or change) my character's background? Can I insert NPCs that are offsite (just by talking about them)?
[*] Can I bend the implied setting? How much? What if I start talking about "how wrong was that time we sacrificed a poor cat (or goat, kid, elf, alien)"?
[*] Can I "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." offers from other players and add to their character background? if not, why? If yes, how much?
[*] ...and the list goes on. I could probably write another dozen just by making the effort of thinking about possible interactions.
[/ulist]
All these questions probably have very simple, direct and non ambiguous answers, but Moreno's reaction tells me they were not communicated to him at all.
Please note: I don't see pretty much any of these questions as requiring the presence of a GM at all, much less one with some "narrative vision/direction".
Disclaimer: I've not played the game and don't have stakes in this discussion, I'm just trying to help resolve some "lost in translation" moments.
Navigazione
[0] Indice dei post
Vai alla versione completa