10-04-2023, 08:27 PM | #1 | |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Movement, Actions, and Unfolding Narrative
This comment from Steve Plambeck:
Quote:
One of the things that came up was how every game will impose an artificial framework that breaks a seamless set of fluid movement and actions into understandable and adjudicable bits. If one takes these bits too literally, the resulting narrative will seem unbelievable. Take TFT’s splitting a turn into Movement and Action phases, with the former coming first. Let’s picture a scene unfolding: Wielding a broadsword and shield, Zelzubar runs at axe-man Bir-Birian. Coming adjacent to Bir-Birian, he stops. Glancing around, he sees all of his comrades advancing on their stock-still opponents. Bir-Birian swings his axe. Zelzubar blocks the axe with his shield, then coils himself to spring at his foe, shield-rushing him to the ground. Zelzubar stands above Bir-Brian briefly before running off at another enemy. It would look ridiculous. The phases of the turn are a convenience, no more. If we understand the turn as being convenient rather than narratively constraining, we can arrive at a more believable story: Wielding a broadsword and shield, Zelzubar runs at axe-man Bir-Birian while their respective comrades chaotically engage each other in deadly feints and rushes. As Zelzubar barrels at him, Bir-Brian swings his hatchet, but it is deflected as the swordsman, smashing into him with his shield, bowls him over and speeds onward to other foes. Timm liked to use the analogy of a film roll that can’t be viewed until all the events of the turn have informed all the others, or even until after the events of several turns have. It’s easy (and I’m as guilty as any) to fall into a rules-driven approach to combat, mechanically declaring actions, roll results, recording damage, and forgetting to take a little time to describe the story that the rules help create. |
|
Tags |
abstraction, actions, rules, story, turns |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|