Gente Che Gioca > Gioco Concreto
Nine Worlds
Marco Costantini:
--- Citazione ---[cite] Domon:[/cite]nettamente narrativista
il gioco è una specie di misto tra "scion" e "mage" ambientato in un sistema solare che, oltre il velo d'illusioni gettato sulla terra da prometeo, vede esarchi (zeus, apollo, atena, ecc) in una guerra fredda con i titani (crono, ecc) per il dominio del sistema solare. (esempio: Hiperione è un capomafia semidio che abita sul sole e lavora per apollo)
grandi avventure, intrigo, e un sistema geniale.
--- Termina citazione ---
Domanda forse più difficile.
In che modo è orientato verso una CA narrativista? Con questo intendo non tanto (o non solo) il livello prettamente "meccanico", ma quello di contenuto. Quali scelte "tematiche" devono compiere i giocatori/personaggi. Qual'è la "premise"?
Moreno Roncucci:
Prima che Domon risponda riguardo al caso specifico di Nine Worlds (che io devo ancora leggere), una premessa: il narrativismo prevede che la Premise esista nella PARTITA, non necessariamente nel MANUALE. Avventure in Prima Serata per esempio non ha una premise fissa (la si decide, anche implicitamente, durante il pitch), e le premise degli altri giochi sono comunque molto ampie, i maniera da essere declinate diversamente da partita a partita.
Cosa serve ad un gioco per essere narrativista? Beh, ovviamente la prova è nel playtesting (si vede effettivamente che tipo di gioco promuove e incoraggia), ma generalmente, ecco cosa diceva Edwards nel 2003:
Eureka Moment: Combat & Bonus Dice for Description
"And this is one of several reasons why I'm always pumping The Pool and The Questing Beast. The ROC games strip out everything except the one, single thing that matters for Narrativist play - how important the current conflict is to you, as a person, and to the other members of the group, as people.
You might have picked up from various ROC threads and Actual Play threads that I am not at all sympathetic to the "conch" method of playing The Pool/TQB. That method would be using the dice strictly as a way to determine who narrates without reference to success or failure of the stated intent. I much prefer the dice to play some role (sometimes a big role) in generalized outcomes, such that they operate as springboards rather than "turns to talk." See my recent discussion of Fortune in RPG Theory ...
This is also why I think Hero Wars is one of the best games out there, because its system is not interpretable in any other fashion, and why The Riddle of Steel sneaks up and "Narrativizes" play, because one must decide how one's Spiritual Attributes are being activated - and that takes a statement of intent and context prior to the roll. (Notice that Sim-preferring people instantly reject Hero Wars outright and instantly abandon the SA system in TROS - they know "the enemy" when they see it.)"
OK, il tono è quello del 2003 (anni di guerre e grandi battaglie, e flames interminabili, con un sacco di gente che persino negava l'esistenza del narrativismo come stile di gioco. Adesso che sono stati tutti sbaragliati l'ambiente è più tranquillo) ma direi che è abbastanza chiaro... 8)
(*) ROC: "Random Order Creations", la casa editrice di James V. West. "ROC Games" sono The Pool e The Questimg Beast.
In effetti, The Pool è il design narrativista minimo: decidi quanto conta per te un tiro (quanti dadi scommetti) e vai.
Niccolò:
sicuramente c'è una bella dose di "il potere corrompe", intramezzato tra meccaniche (hubris e arete) e il sentting.
ma fondamentalmente il gioco è sospinto dall'inseguimento delle "muse", che sono dei tratti che fanno sia da obiettivo, sia concorrono nel successo della risoluzione.
poi il sistema è piuttosto... peculiare, perchè imita il funzionamento meccanico dei giochi da tavolo "alla tedesca", come agricola e puerto rico, solo che qui invece di fare legna, per costruire recinti, per allevare maiali, per produrre prosciutto, crei i tuoi obiettivi, per coinvolgere png, per inasprire i conflitti, per (...capito il senso? non credo, va davvero giocato...)
posso quotare da story games http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=5695&page=1#Item_15
--- Citazione ---
My Thoughts on the Nine Worlds System
It occurred to me that Nine Worlds is a Euro-style roleplaying game.
Let me explain.
Over the last ten to fifteen years, there’s been an invasion of the United States by a new breed of boardgame. Most of these come from Germany and, more broadly, from Europe, and feature specific named designers (e.g. Reiner Knizia, Wolfgang Kramer), as opposed to a company’s branding (e.g. Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley). These games tend to focus on mechanics first, with a different understanding of the connection between mechanics and theme.
Many of these games are economics games, such as Caylus, Princes of Florence, and Puerto Rico. In these games, you have to develop an economic infrastructure, enabling the gathering of resources that enable you to build up your infrastructure further, eventually enabling you to perform the necessary buying/selling/shipping/whatever necessary to earn victory points and, ultimately, win the game.
That’s also quite possibly the driest, most boring explanation of these games. EVAR. Because they are actually a lot of fun.
However, good play in these games requires that you understand the mechanics of how Resource A is gathered, converted into Resource B, spent to increase Infrastructure which allows you to collect Resource C, which, in turn, delivers victory points. You have to do a great deal of look-ahead and understand how the decisions that you are making now shape your effectiveness later.
This is exactly what the Nine Worlds system requires.
On first look, the system doesn’t actually seem like much. Draw a bunch of cards (the more, the better), and pick whatever gives you the best value. Ooh yay. And then there’s this bit about a victor being able to choose to go another phase. Why would you ever do that? I mean, if you won conflict, then you won, right? At the same time, there feels like lots of fiddly bits. Just like some of the best Eurogames, Nine Worlds simultaneously feels like there’s not enough in the game while feeling overly complicated.
But no. Because, see, conflict also results in Points (Resource A), which are then invested in Infrastructure (Muses and temporary Urge and Virtue ratings), which allow a superior outcome in future conflict. Of course, to take advantage of your temporary ratings, you need to go another phase in conflict, especially hoping to get some Stasis to lock your temporary gains into a more permanent form. Then, of course, there’s the need to earn the right majority of victories on a given Muse before resolving it, so that you can earn Valor or Hubris (Resources B and C), thus allowing you to improve your Infrastructure in other ways, thus allowing you to better overcome in conflict. Of course, your long-term Infrastructure and your best means of running this engine is through multiple overlapping Muses. Therefore, you need to plan your Muses as stepping stones through the fiction, racking up their ratings and using them to fuel yourself….
And so it goes.
It’s very clever, actually, and I think that the “game-y” aspects of it will become a lot of fun in play. In particular, I think that Crystal will come to enjoy this angle of play. However, that requires a level of proficiency with the system that the players are still developing. It’s not D&D, but Nine Worlds has a significant tactical element to it that could be easily overlooked by someone expecting a “hippy storygame” experience from the game.
I have to tip my hat to you, Matt. It wasn’t at all what I was expecting from the game.
But I like it.
--- Termina citazione ---
Navigazione
[0] Indice dei post
Vai alla versione completa