[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

I just realized something about how I play My Life With Master. I don't ever particularly care about getting to the endgame, in which the players take down the Master. In fact, I always kind of don't look forward to it, because it sounds like it's going to be a long drawn-out process in which success or failure of the mandated goal depends entirely on a lot of tough die rolls.

During the remainder of a MLWM game, my definition of "success or failure" doesn't depend on dice. For me, success comes when something interesting happens with a connection or with another minion; success or failure on a die roll just guides me towards the exact nature of the interesting something. Or lack thereof.

Comments

[bryant]

I played at The Black Road; I'd certainly be up for playing again sometime. And yeah, I've never reached Endgame. If I do play again I'd like to play with a group that'll play as many sessions as necessary.

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

I'd like to play a game out to Endgame too. I guess there is a lot of rolling at the end of the game, but I'm not sure why that definition of success and failure in the rest of the game (player's real goal is for something interesting to happen, dice just guide you to describe that) couldn't still apply in Endgame.

[bryant]

Because at that point the game steps in and says "you don't get to stop until outcome X occurs." To me that feels like a much stronger definition of success and failure than you see elsewhere. I am open to being proved wrong about this, of course -- I haven't played it so what do I know?

And I get satisfaction out of MLWM from the act of playing a minion and exploring the mindspace created by the situation and by my characterization decisions. The endgame (with the exception of one potential outcome) removes that; it removes my character from the context of the rest of the game. Eeek!

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

I think a game like MLWM (and Breaking the Ice) is an interesting example of immersion being less important tha determination of outcome. My experience with both games is that the framework of system interferes with immersion into character. And unlike Bryant I didn't find MLWM very conducive to exploring the headspace of the freak I was playing and his interaction with Master. What I found interesting was the exploration of choice pathways. The hows (the roleplaying) mattered little. It was the whats the counted.

One of the reasons I've been less than interested in playing the game again. It struck me as very similar to the Lord of the Rings boardgame we have, but without the cool graphics.

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think that's why you & I had different reactions to MLWM. Immersion is not really that high on my list of priorities for gaming. I think I like figuring out what happens, "exploring the choice pathways," if you like. Same reason Mission Play is my favorite part of Age of Paranoia.

But I'm still waiting on your post on these issues for 20x20. And was I wrong in thinking you had liked Breaking The Ice?

[bryant]

See, but playing MLWM was very immersive for me. Odd.