| Philosophies of Gaming |
| Interesting thinking going on at the moment, as I'm waiting to start getting ready for the dance tonight: What is my personal philosophy of gaming? I was inspired to write this because Guess today, before our SW session, was talking about how, for him, gaming is, in large part, a form of escapism, and therefore, if it is tied to closely to the constraints of reality, it ceases to really be "gaming". This made me realize that my philosophy is quite different. First, the Economist is not an escapist. In fact, hardly ever does he feel a need to escape from reality. Now, that's not to say that I only think about reality all the time. Just, when I start thinking outside of reality it's not with the purpose of escaping. See, I think one of my "things" is that I can't really escape from reality with my mind active. If I want to escape, I have to either go to sleep or put on headphones and not do anything. So, why then do I participate in the fantastical things called "role-playing games"? Simple recreation. And this view has a definite impact on the way I play. I am a person that enjoys puzzles, especially logic puzzles. I love taking all the pieces that I'm given and figuring out how they all work together. Unlike a jigsaw puzzle, a role playing game provides a more "thick" opportunity for that. It's much like an interactive logic puzzle in that way. And that's what I love in games. I love the mysteries that need figured out, and I love figuring them out. Now, what about my GMing? (At this point I imagine BD and mia amino are reading carefully, haha.) I approach GMing from a different perspective than from playing. In GMing, I like to create a world with stories in it. Why? Because I personally like coming up with stories. I just do. Unlike those that are inspired to write, I often don't care if my stories are discovered. So, I could easily have stories that aren't fully discovered. (For example, mysterious chess-playing cigarette-smoking 10 year-olds). I'm fine with that. The important thing is that there's a cool story going on that is impacted by the actions of the players. Basically, the players are bound up in a story that isn't immutable. Actions have consequences. (In fact, inactions do too.) And part of the fun for me in GMing is coming up with sensible consequences. A recent example "Well, the Hunters decided to only give the nice kid Werewolf the Innocent's work phone. Also, there are existing outside forces that put the kid at danger. Therefore, he cannot be saved at this point. Instead, the Innocent gets a frantic message on his work phone, and the kid ends up missing." Deadly consequence? Not at all (at least directly). But significant consequences both to the story and to the position of the characters (player and otherwise). A Vampire that I didn't expect to get killed right away did. GM freak out time, right? Not at all. See, there's a world around this event that will react to it. Was my story ruined since it centered on the actions of this Vamp? Not in the least! Instead, what I thought was the main gyst of the story is really just a chapter! Thus, the story doesn't enter the resolution phase quite yet. There's plenty more to have happen. Now it just gets the chance to. Well, that's a brief summary of my philosophy on gaming. Take it, leave it, agree, disagree. Really, it's an individual issue for those that game. Yet, it is important that we understand our purposes in the things we do. And these are mine in gaming. |
| Home Philosophy Theology Economics and Finance Politics The Arts Costa Rica 2004 Fun Stuff Links My Blog E-mail Me |
 |