You could win by dying in an appropriate way (sacrificing your life to save the bad guy that's secretly your son, for example). Whether you die, retire, flee or join the enemy is irrelevant for the mechanics, but of course extremely important to the story. Another reason to "move on" is of course to win. Though only one person picking a lock is kinda boring it works better if you take the scene a lot broader where one guy might be picking a lock to take something, while others lay waste to the guards, dig for info or do other cool stuff.Ĭharacters can't die against the will of the player, but at some point your character will be so vulnerable that you will choose to let him die or otherwise leave the game. But conflict doesn't necessarily have to be violent basically any attempt to overcome an obstacle can be considered a conflict. Standard Hollowpoint is extremely violent, and involves hypercompetent James Bond, Jason Bourne, MIB-style agents or criminals doing whatever it takes in order to accomplish their goal. The stat you use is not about how you do it, but about what you accomplish with it: do you Kill someone, Terrorize someone, Dig for information, Take something, Con someone, or do something Cool? Play is driven primarily through the fiction, but revolves entirely around conflict (players vs opposition, never player vs player), which is resolved with that dice mechanic. The dice mechanic is fairly abstract, somewhat reminiscent of Dogs in the Vineyard (though very different).
I suspect the rest of Hollowpoint is strongly Narrativist, though I'm not entirely sure.
GAMIST VS SIMULATIONIST VS STORYIST FREE
If you win, you get pats on the back, maybe a free drink, and you make a new character that joins the game in the next scene. In Hollowpoint, you can win the game by having your character retire from the game as a direct result of his Complication. I know of only one RPG that includes a real victory condition, and that's Hollowpoint. It includes victory and loss conditions for characters
Questions based on GNS theory are hard to answer because GNS theory itself is so ill-defined, but your link does contain this in its definition of gamism: A proper Gamist-Narrativist hybrid would include both a primary gamist mechanical draw and a primary narrativist mechanical draw. The game wouldn't be the hybrid it is without both of these things. On the surface (like me), you might originally have assumed that it was nearly pure simulationist, but the game attracts easily based on both its detailed combat mechanics (Simulationist) and its spiritual attributes (Narrativist). As a helping example, The Riddle of Steel was lauded as a 1:1 Narrativist-Simulationist system. What I am asking for is a game where the main draws are both Gamist and Narrativist in nature. To clear up confusion, I'm not asking for some pristine, perfectly mathematically balance between "Gamist mechanics" and "Narrativist mechanics". This question refers to GNS Theory again, so I'd like answers to be based on that. I considered making this question what would define a true hybrid system, but that seems like a discussion question this seems like a more solid way of getting a handle on what a system like that would look like.
My question is this: Does a true 1 to 1 Gamist-Narrativist Hybrid system exist? To be clear, I'm not looking for Gamist with Narrativist trappings (like 13th age and its One Unique Thing mechanic), and I'm not looking for primarily Narrativist with Gamist trappings. I looked at this discussion at The Forge, where it's suggested that it is possible, but all the example games have one dominant form. I was thinking on some game design issues, and I realized that I had never actually run across a proper Gamist-Narrativist system designed to equally support both kinds of play.
0 kommentar(er)
