[2368]  daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sarath Krishnaswamy) Generic 04/25/97 15:43 (101 lines)
Subject: Re: drama v. plot
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:07:51 -0400
To: jtgold@MIT.EDU, generic@MIT.EDU
From: sarath@acut.com (Sarath Krishnaswamy)

At 5:06 PM 4/24/97, jtgold@mit.edu wrote:
>First, that we are not good actors or dissemblers does not mean that
>we cannot get better, or that getting better is not worth the effort.
>But more important than that is the question, why must we be good
>actors to effect drama?

Actually, I agree with you that drama is a wonderful characteristic of
assassin games, and that specific skill towards that end isn't necessary to
effect it.  My main point, though, was that games are neither created nor
played for the purposes of creating a dramatic oeuvre.  There are better
media and more skilled players for that purpose (conceding the originality
of the assassin medium, which you mention in your next line:).

>The avantage of the Assassin's Guild over a
>theatre group is that there is no script.

> It is this artful
>drama that makes such a game worth the trouble.

Here's where I'm debating you.  I grant that the high-drama moments are
fun, and cool.  I've seen plenty.  But I don't believe most players enter
games thinking about the cool situations they will get into or to which
they will be a witness.  The difference between Assassin and just Live
Action Role Playing is the "Game" part.  There's a desired end-state for
each character in 10 days, leading to such paradoxes as the World Explodes
on Day 11 scenario.  Goals give direction to playing a character and should
become one's first thought - because they are your character's first
thought, not in spite of your character's thoughts.  Roleplay, in an
Assassin game (I'll add in an IMHO to this so I don't get flamed) is a
means to an end.  It's the car you're taking to get to your destination.
It's up to you to ensure you stay in your own car; that's one of the rules
of the game and honorable sportsmen don't cheat.  But the point of the
exercise is to get to your destination.

I'll expand on that analogy (seeing as I've probably already convinced a
whole new generation of assassins that I'm overbearing and opinionated :-):
At the beginning of the game, you're given a car.  Or, rather, you're
told, much like the Emporer in the story, that you have this nice car which
you can't see, but it's a Volkswagen Microbus, really, and you're headed to
Santa Fe.  You take that information on faith, since you can't challenge it
(the GM's make the rules, after all).  To win the game, you must make
people (the other drivers, now, not the cars) believe you drove a
Volkswagen Microbus to Santa Fe.  That incorporates two separate
components:  You have to show them that you are in Santa Fe at the end of
the game, and you have to convince them that they can see your invisible
microbus.

The first of these actions is working towards goals, the second is
establishing character, and both are critical.  Getting to the finish line
on foot is losing.  So is wowing everyone with your great Microbus at the
VW Expo in Munich.  Either one of these activities can be fun for you - but
you still lost.  And you are in the game to win.  Please don't say
otherwise:  if you honestly enter games without trying to win - by deciding
you want to either ignore goals for the sake of roleplaying or ignore your
character in order to achieve goals - then you're going to screw up someone
else's game. If I'm concerned because it looks like you have a Monster
Truck, I may take a risky shortcut to avoid you, only to find out you were
never racing me because you were too busy painting decals on it to bother
making the race exciting.

So you win the game when people see you in Santa Fe with your microbus.
You Master the game when they see you cruise over the finish line in a
faded-gold 1967 Microbus with one cylinder misfiring, a weird repetitive
coughing sound coming from the engine, and a faint scent of hashish and
Pine Tree air freshener escaping from within. {Boy is that statement going
to be flamebait}.  Note in neither case does it require you to have made a
dashing come-from-behind victory whilst sideswiping three other cars.
That's really my point about drama in games.  It's neat and sexy and
completely ancillary to either roleplaying or accomplishment of goals.
It's fun and makes games memorable, but I think they're worthwhile on their
own - otherwise I wouldn't have played in them.

>Of course you don't.  Chess and assassin are different games, with
>separate advantages.  You wont find drama in a game of chess.  But
>neither will you find a comparable mental challenge in an assassin
>game.  Why then, should accomplishing goals (which can be done to more
>amusement and reward in other pursuits) be esteemed above creating a
>dramatic story (which cannot)?  Drama is what the strength of the
>guild best lends itself to.

With regard to chess and assassin, I'll refer you to Stephen's letter while
cocurrently noting that, of the many different games I have played I have
found drama in most of them and believe the mental challenge of Assassin to
be in the top five of them.  Compare chess and Titan to come (slightly)
closer to your point above :-)  As for esteeming goals above drama - I
admire both, in different settings.  However, while I do in fact watch road
races in order to see a crash (when I watch them, anyway), I don't play
Assassin for it.  As to the strength of the Guild - last I checked it
contained some excellent strategists, far-out personalities, and mechanics
lawyers, as well as assorted masters of histrionics to whom we attribute
dramatic essence.  Games work because of the mix.  I think.

Again, thanks for reading this far.

Sarath.


--[2368]--