The Tigger Syndrome in RPGs
frj
John Mack <ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>"I don't want to play anything that involves morality".
>This completely floored me, as I consider Humanity and the degeneration
>rules to be central to Vampire. What he was demanding (to my mind) was
>equivalent to signing up for Call of Cthulhu but refusing to play the
>SAN rules, or AD&D without character levels. We finally decided to
>abandon the current PCs and the current plot (and, as it turned out, I
>ended up abandoning the players, as I could not muster any enthusiasm
>for a game with the new specifications).
>Has anyone else had this problem? Is it a universal phenomenon? Has
>anyone dealt with it successfully, and if so, how? This has bugged me
>for a while, as I have not only watched at least one talented GM drop
>out of the scene over this, but have not been able to bring myself to GM
>for some years.
It is a definite problem and a difficult one to overcome. I've seen in
a number of myraid ways, from "no politics" to "no ethical challenges"
to "no combat" to "no romance". I've also seen it from GMs, in one
case a GM who had no interest in character development and experience
improvements (despite wanting to run a series of connected scenarios
spanning a year or more of character's lives) to GM's who wanted "No
religious involvement, overtones or importance" in a non-modern
setting.
Sometimes its a matter of the player/GM being uncomfortable with the
situation or the aspects, and sometimes its because they were
previously in a bad experience.
It can get worse. I've had players basically come out and say "No
heavy roleplaying - we just want to have fun, not think about what the
character is feeling". That one floored me. Sometimes its time to walk
away in disgust. (A solution I save as an absolute last resort).
Staff Of The Fantasy Realms Roleplaying Game
_________________________________________
Joseph Teller * Kiralee McCauley * Cynthia Shettle
f...@tiac.net http://www.tiac.net/users/frj
http://www.tiac.net/users/pmaranci
Mark Apolinski
I guess the moral of this story is don't believe it when the players say
"We'll play anything." Keep pushing to find out what they would
*prefer* to play.
Mark
Hilarion
Within article <335F1D...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au>,
John Mack <ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au> scripted:
[snip-aroo-kanga-roo]
>After a few sessions, the GM was becoming frustrated that the players
>were missing obvious clues, and simply not going in the direction they
>were supposed to. If he didn't know better, he'd swear that they were
>going out of their way to avoid certain crucial scenes. He sat them down
>and discussed his concerns at length. His statement of what he thought
>was the obvious, that he'd designed a very political chronicle, drew
>dismissive responses from the players.
>
>"We have no interest in playing politics."
>My own Tigger Syndrome experience was also with the Vampire game system.
>I had designed a redemption-based chronicle, and most stories were to
>revolve around Humanity (a crucial game stat) and the gaining or loss of
>it. Again, after a lengthy series of missed cues which ended with an NPC
>coming right out and pointing out the way to a recalcitrant PC, the
>player and I finally had it out, with him declaring,
>
>"I don't want to play anything that involves morality".
I've run up against the same things myself. Most people I've been gaming
with in recent years seem to be the tried-and-true-don't-deviate types:
either you play standard fare, or fall out of the game by natural
consequence.
Every time I've tried of late to bring about what I would consider an
interesting game, the same fruitless thing happens: only one player out of
six will grasp at the same straws I do.
Of course, there are different playing styles. One could easily and without
great effort, have a "real time" roleplaying game, instituting a background
that involves nothing but the players. Amber is ideal for this, as are
others that involve more comparative issues between players. (ie, vying for
control of "background elements" in the aspect of political positions,
resources, or what have you.) This isn't what I'd consider real
background material, but as a pale comparison, it still allows some drifting
into a domain where you CAN get closer to your own ideal.
I do feel that there are a great many stories for vampires; the humanity
issue being just one of several. Others may feel the same. Concentrating
on one at a time over a chronicle-in-serial would be highly interesting (as
it would give everybody a bit of everything and resolve a lot of issues that
they hand over to you, carte blanche, as a player and GM to explore).
Another thing I'd attempt to proselytize would be the mix-and-mash in tiny
quantities of the things you'd try to realize, with humanity being one.
This would offend less, and would allow greater divertsity in "stats." One
thing I've found is that a great deal of these same players end up piling
higher on what would be considered "story elements" if they deem them to be
more important, even if by proxy of the fact that everybody else who's
playing with them does.
(By the way, thank you quite heartily for the verbose post--it's nice to see
someone in similiar situations and of similar heart about the same.)
Lise Mendel
John Mack <ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
<definition and first horrific example snipped>
> My own Tigger Syndrome experience was also with the Vampire game system.
> I had designed a redemption-based chronicle, and most stories were to
> revolve around Humanity (a crucial game stat) and the gaining or loss of
> it. Again, after a lengthy series of missed cues which ended with an NPC
> coming right out and pointing out the way to a recalcitrant PC, the
> player and I finally had it out, with him declaring,
>
> "I don't want to play anything that involves morality".
>
> This completely floored me, as I consider Humanity and the degeneration
> rules to be central to Vampire. What he was demanding (to my mind) was
> equivalent to signing up for Call of Cthulhu but refusing to play the
> SAN rules, or AD&D without character levels. We finally decided to
> abandon the current PCs and the current plot (and, as it turned out, I
> ended up abandoning the players, as I could not muster any enthusiasm
> for a game with the new specifications).
>
> Has anyone else had this problem? Is it a universal phenomenon? Has
> anyone dealt with it successfully, and if so, how? This has bugged me
> for a while, as I have not only watched at least one talented GM drop
> out of the scene over this, but have not been able to bring myself to GM
> for some years.
>
I've never had it happen to the extent you've described, but I've had
individual plot "threads" snipped because a player didn't want to deal
with them. I've also had GMs say "this is going to be a light campaign"
and bring in angst ridden scenarios and grim worldviews. It works both
ways.
That's why it's important to know your players and _explicitly_ discuss
campaign focus with them before running a game. You may find that one
of the regular players in the group chooses to sit out the game
entirely.
--
Lise Mendel <cata...@access.digex.net>
http://www.access.digex.net/~catalyst
Colician Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the LOSS
Women in Gaming http://www.access.digex.net/~catalyst/WIG
John Gronquist
John Mack <ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au> wrote in article [SNIP>
[SNIP]
> Has anyone else had this problem? Is it a universal phenomenon? Has
> anyone dealt with it successfully, and if so, how? This has bugged me
> for a while, as I have not only watched at least one talented GM drop
> out of the scene over this, but have not been able to bring myself to GM
> for some years.
>
> Remove SPAMBLOCKER. from email address to reply
>
> Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/rpg/rpgpage.htm
My friend, you hit the proverbial pin head on the nail as it were... Total
agreement and understanding from THIS fanboy...
Cheers,
John
John Mack
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------214B46A258E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
A.A. Milne introduced the character of Tigger to his novels, something
like this:
One day, Winnie the Pooh found a strange creature on his doorstep. After
introductions, Pooh thought to offer his guest some food, and asked him
what he liked to eat.
"Tiggers like everything", replied Tigger.
Accordingly, Pooh offered him the only food he had in the house, a pot
of honey. After sampling it, Tigger declared,
"Tiggers don't like honey."
"I thought Tiggers liked everything," said Pooh.
"Except honey," qualified Tigger.
Pooh took Tigger to the house of his best friend, Piglet, who offered
him some acorns. After disposing of a mouthful, Tigger declared,
"Tiggers don't like acorns."
"I thought Tiggers liked everything," said Piglet.
"Except honey," corrected Pooh.
"And acorns," added Tigger.
I'm sure you can see where this is going; the above pattern was repeated
for quite some time.
What does this have to do with role-playing, you may ask?
Certain games are more background-intensive than others (I'm thinking
particularly here of Vampire), so it's important to make sure that you
put the work into areas where players are going to spend a lot of time.
One GM I know of discussed characters and plots with his players, mapped
out the people, organisations and relationships of his game-city,
figured out a few stories to start with, and went into the first story
in full confidence that his players had gamed with him for years and had
stated that they would trust his judgement.
After a few sessions, the GM was becoming frustrated that the players
were missing obvious clues, and simply not going in the direction they
were supposed to. If he didn't know better, he'd swear that they were
going out of their way to avoid certain crucial scenes. He sat them down
and discussed his concerns at length. His statement of what he thought
was the obvious, that he'd designed a very political chronicle, drew
dismissive responses from the players.
"We have no interest in playing politics."
While mentally checking off the amount of background material he could
modify, and how much he would simply have to discard, he calmly asked
them what kind of game they wanted to play.
"Whatever you want to write, we'll play anything."
"As long as it's not political."
I haven't heard whether this GM went ahead and designed a new chronicle,
or responded to the sinking feeling in his gut and ran screaming from
the whole mess. I do know that, the last time I discussed role-playing
with him, he had given up writing convention modules on the grounds that
"The modules I want to write aren't the ones that people want to play."
Which is the player's loss, quite frankly, but still ...
My own Tigger Syndrome experience was also with the Vampire game system.
I had designed a redemption-based chronicle, and most stories were to
revolve around Humanity (a crucial game stat) and the gaining or loss of
it. Again, after a lengthy series of missed cues which ended with an NPC
coming right out and pointing out the way to a recalcitrant PC, the
player and I finally had it out, with him declaring,
"I don't want to play anything that involves morality".
This completely floored me, as I consider Humanity and the degeneration
rules to be central to Vampire. What he was demanding (to my mind) was
equivalent to signing up for Call of Cthulhu but refusing to play the
SAN rules, or AD&D without character levels. We finally decided to
abandon the current PCs and the current plot (and, as it turned out, I
ended up abandoning the players, as I could not muster any enthusiasm
for a game with the new specifications).
Has anyone else had this problem? Is it a universal phenomenon? Has
anyone dealt with it successfully, and if so, how? This has bugged me
for a while, as I have not only watched at least one talented GM drop
out of the scene over this, but have not been able to bring myself to GM
for some years.
--------------214B46A258E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="GAMING.SIG"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="GAMING.SIG"
John Mack
Remove SPAMBLOCKER. from email address to reply
Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/rpg/rpgpage.htm
--------------214B46A258E--
Al Petterson
Jason Stokes wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski wrote:
> >John Mack wrote:
> >> A.A. Milne introduced the character of Tigger to his novels, something
> >> like this:
I like John's name for this problem.
This is almost a variation of the "assumption clash" theme elsewhere in
this newsgroup -- this is a "genre clash".
> >I guess the moral of this story is don't believe it when the players say
> >"We'll play anything." Keep pushing to find out what they would
> >*prefer* to play.
>
> When I roleplayed, I never designed any serious campaign ideas until I had
> a chance to muck around with a few light adventures beforehand. Doing that
> usually means some pretty silly adventures, but you do get a certain feel
> for what the players are likely to do. Kind of.
This works well, when you can do it. It's hard to do with a game like
Vampire, though, where unless you're going to run in a canned setting
(Chicago, fx) there is an awful lot of work to be done up front -- who
hates whom, why, ways to find out and use this to your advantage, etc.
>>>"Whatever you want to write, we'll play anything."
>>>"As long as it's not political."
The key would have been for Pooh to find out what Tigger would do when
confronted with a menu -- and a waiter who won't take "Surprise me" for
an answer. Or better yet to put Tigger in front of a smorgasbord and
see what he eats first.
May I suggest that the GM write a list of "themes" (the word is vague)
-- e.g.
- Combat
- Exploration
- Intrigue/Politics
- Religion
- Money
- Horror
- Interparty conflict
- Moral conflict
- Character development
- Romance
etc.
Give details and examples of situations if possible. Run example
scenes that concentrate on each -- group dynamics, and GM style and
preference, can make some things a lot more (or less) fun than they
initially sound. [1]
Also tell them the basics of the setting (in Vampire you -will- have
some amount of politics and horror; the rest is negotiable, fx). Set
the right expectations for the world.
Now, ask the players to _rank_ your list of themes. Don't allow ties
(except at the bottom). Absolutely don't allow copouts of "I'll play
anything, I don't care".
If all the players put combat at the top, you probably should include
some. If they put intrigue at the bottom, maybe you just plain can't
run the kind of Vampire chronicle you hoped for. If they put character
development at the bottom, perhaps you should get different players.
And so on.
Make your own list, too. And if everyone has a wildly different list,
discuss it and try to find a compromise.
Do it _before_ spending the time on world or character design. And
then, once the campaign starts, if there are things people ranked low
but which you feel you could make interesting to them (intrigue, for
example), keep dropping in bits of the stuff you like while keeping the
focus on what the players said they want. If they pick up on it, give
them more; if they shrink away, let it go and try something different
later.
Much like seduction, actually.
[1] For a long time I was terrible at running combat -- the fights we
did get into were drawn-out and boring. But I got some players far more
interested in romantic conflict than they thought they'd enjoy.
--
Al Petterson aa...@oro.net
(916) 784-7777 x131 (w)
(916) 477-2027 (h)
"He has an inordinate fondness for beetles." -- JBS Haldane,
when asked what biology taught of the nature of God
Jason Stokes
On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:50:45 GMT, Mark Apolinski <Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>I guess the moral of this story is don't believe it when the players say
>"We'll play anything." Keep pushing to find out what they would
>*prefer* to play.
>Mark
When I roleplayed, I never designed any serious campaign ideas until I had
a chance to muck around with a few light adventures beforehand. Doing that
usually means some pretty silly adventures, but you do get a certain feel
for what the players are likely to do. Kind of. In one Rifts adventure I
ran, the characters were supposed to realise they were up against
overwhelming military forces, and were therefore expected to use brains, not
guns. I soon learned that while my particular group could manage to control
their weapons for more than 30 minutes, they hated it so much I made sure
that my adventures from then on had lots of minor, challenging but winnable
combat situations.
--
Jason Stokes: j.stokes @ bohm.anu.edu.au
Ph: +61 06 291 93 84
Mary K. Kuhner
I had a run-in with Tigger quite recently. We started a new campaign,
and I put some effort into a complicated investigative plot. Four
sessions later the player said "I've been trying hard, but I'm bored
and this is not at all what I wanted. Can't we do something
not so slow and frustrating?"
In retrospect, there was some miscommunication involved. When he proposed
cops as PCs he was thinking action-adventure type cops and I was thinking
detective type cops. Also, neither of us had ever played cops before,
and we were both surprised how onerous the restrictions (probable cause,
burden of proof, permits for wiretapping, etc.) were in play.
But I think my biggest error was starting right away with a complex,
carefully designed adventure. Past campaigns have worked better with a
tiny, rather trivial starting adventure to give the game, characters,
players, and GM time to get the feel of things. Then you can see which
way the game needs to go.
It's easy to blame players who say "Oh, anything," and certainly players
shouldn't say that (it's never true). But it's hard for a player to
list what she doesn't like--it may never occur to her, for example,
that the GM might consider leading a unit of military men suitable
material for an RPG. I think things work best either if:
(1) The GM is upfront about what kind of game he intends to run, and
selects players accordingly; or
(2) The GM doesn't make up his mind what kind of game it is until a
couple of weeks into the campaign, when he's gotten to know players and
characters; or
(3) The GM asks the players what they want, and persistantly keeps
asking until he gets an adequate answer.
The difficulty with (1) is that the GM may have trouble finding players
if he's not willing to bend a bit. The difficulty with (2) and (3) is
that the GM may get pushed into running a game that bores or frustrates
him, which never works well. Perhaps the ideal method is somewhere
in between. Method (2) is particularly well suited for develop-in-play
players (and GMs) whereas method (3) is better for design-at-start.
A misbegotten campaign, like my cops example, can sometimes be saved if
the GM and players hash it out *before* everyone is too frustrated. In
this case, we revised the society to greatly reduce the restrictions on
police behavior, revised the kinds of scenarios to emphasize action over
investigation, and revised the characters a bit to broaden the more
investigation-oriented ones. Seems to be working so far, though it was
a bit wrenching for the GM.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Kedamono
On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:50:45 GMT, Mark Apolinski
<Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>I guess the moral of this story is don't believe it when the players say
>"We'll play anything." Keep pushing to find out what they would
>*prefer* to play.
Interestingly enough, I've found the opposite to be true too. I've run
into "Tigger" GMs. I've joined one or two games, and asked the GM, "what
kind of character are you looking for?" and he would reply "Oh, anything,
we're running a real roleplaying scenario this time." Then I would design
my character...
Afterwards, I would wonder what the GM meant by "real roleplaying". Almost
every character I've designed of late has been balanced more for
roleplaying than "rollplaying". I've replied to a few GMs by mail, asking
what they were looking for, and after receiving their reply of "real
roleplaying", I would send them my roleplaying resumé and never hear from
them again.
I can play the thud and blunder characters, and, with a couple of
exceptions, really don't like that style anymore. Tiggers abound.
--
The Kedamono Dragon | The "Anthill Inside" Page is at:
Keda...@concentric.NOSPAM-net | http://www.concentric.net/~kedamono
Keda...@aol.NOSPAM-com |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my Bryce art page: http://www.concentric.net/~kedamono/art.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at the Alternate History Travel Guides! | Ook!
http://users.aol.com/kedamono/sliders/alterguides.html | Gleep!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the ITA, http://www.concentric.net/~kedamono/alterguide/ita.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Spam Trap, Remove "NOSPAM-" from email address.
Rick Cordes
In article <335F1D...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au>,
John Mack <ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>...
>Pooh took Tigger to the house of his best friend, Piglet, who offered
>him some acorns. After disposing of a mouthful, Tigger declared,
>
>"Tiggers don't like acorns."
>
>"I thought Tiggers liked everything," said Piglet.
>
>"Except honey," corrected Pooh.
>
>"And acorns," added Tigger.
>
>I'm sure you can see where this is going; the above pattern was repeated
>for quite some time.
>...
>Has anyone else had this problem? Is it a universal phenomenon? Has
>anyone dealt with it successfully, and if so, how?...
Tigger is, of course, an infantile Tantalus in denial of ambrosia.
[So would agree Graves, if not Milne.] One can understand how a diet solely
of acorns or honey or ambrosia would sicken some quicker than others but
the one objective reason to design a cuisine around their absence would
be because someone had an allergy. Other than that... what?
The subjective reasons thereafter devolve from sensibility, and
from the subjective perspective there devolves all sorts of do`s and
don't`s various advocates will say either make the roleplaying experience
possible or impossible for them. This will be true of both what they say can
happen or exist in the game, as well as, how the game is to be conducted. Such
proclivities will stray toward advocating the game should always be played
one way or another rather than appreciating that it is the admixture of
things and proccesses that makes RPGs interesting and that roleplaying
should be more of challenge and not just the one way, servile expression
of one's conception of character or milieu. Hidebound RPGers often somehow
muddle sense and sensibility, and then go on to rationalize and ardently
advocate their slavish devotion to it.
People will tend to decline to do this or that because it does
not play to their long suits or it offends their sensibilty. In regard to
the former, on one hand, I feel referees should cater to whatever
characters they have allowed creation: if you've allowed the creation
of a chef, and your campaign revolves around politics or morality, then
you should arrange some intrigue, or something, around state dinners or
the kitchen of the monastary. In regard to both the former and the latter,
again, neither politics nor morality should occlude the whole campaign,
nor need to impact upon the players to any degree much beyond how they've
directed their characters toward it, however, what makes or breaks the
game, will depend upon whether the players and referee engage in a manner
which keeps the ball rolling and allows roleplayers to meet the challenge
of staying in character. Neither can assume an unalloyed stance in their
approach to their parts yet still have the whole succeed.
Travis Hall
I have had a few experiences with the Tigger Syndrome myself.
About three and a half years back, my players and I got sick of playing in
Krynn. (Dragonlance sounded like a good setting for what was supposed to
be an experiment to see if I could cut it as a campaign DM and what bits
of AD&D needed changing for further games - the "short-term experiment"
ended up running for two years.) As a result, my players and I decided to
restart in my own campaign world. After some discussion, I presented my
players with a list of options for the type of area they would start play
in. I wanted them to choose a setting type, or alternatively suggest a new
one for the list. Included were such fantasy ideas as a lost world
setting, a celtic setting, a norse setting or a magocracy. Only one player
expressed a definate preference (not counting the guy who wanted to move
to Greyhawk, who was summarily ignored, since none of us had Greyhawk
material, I wasn't going to buy it, it was out of print, everyone else
wanted my homemade campaign world, and I don't much like Greyhawk). That
player said he wanted to play in a setting analogous to about 15th-16th
century Earth (but fantasized, of course). The others were "happy" to go
along with everything. The setting was prompted constructed, the
characters made up, and the Greyhawk player replaced. (He refused to go on
when I said that Berserker Priests did not really fit the setting. He had
his chance to suggest alternate settings.) Some time later, it was
becoming apparent to me that the player who suggested the setting was
likely the least satisfied with it. He wanted to go out and thump monsters
with abandon and perform the heroic actions more commonly found in, say, a
Conan the Barbituate style setting, rather than interact with others in a
more social setting and swing from chandaliers a la The Three Musketeers.
When I questioned him more closely, it turned out that he was never really
interested in that society. He just assumed the higher technology of
Earth's 16th century (as compared to, say, the 12th century) would be
replaced with magic, and wanted to see magic as a commonplace thing.
(Unfortunately, I am not so interested in that style of setting, and as
the GM also has to be interested in the game, if I was presented with a
demand to make magic an everyday occurance, of have my players walk out,
I'd reply, "Bye!") In other words, the only player who cared, wasn't
telling the true story. Still, that game held up for two years, until
circumstances induced replacement of some players, and I decided it was
time for another setting change.
But a more disturbing incident, not quite the same but related, occurred
in another campaign I was running. A friend of mine learned that I used to
run a Dragonlance campaign, and asked me to GM another AD&D Dragonlance
game so that she could play in the setting. When an opportune time
presented itself, I brought together a handpicked group of players for a
rather experimental roleplaying campaign in good old Krynn, a game which
was really put together specially for the requesting player. After playing
the game for a while, it became obvious that this player, and incidentally
(and not surprisingly) her boyfriend, another player, were not happy with
the way the game was going. However, when I repeatedly questioned them
about the matter, they told me over and over again that they were
completely happy with the game. Later they dropped out of the game, an
event triggered by my losing my temper and informing the male player that
he would sit down and player rather than reconstruct a computer with some
other people who should never have been there in the first place (I
realise I should never have gotten angry, but I can't run a game when my
players are not present). It was only after they dropped out (and I
cornered the female without her boyfriend) that I finally learned that no,
my losing my temper was not the reason for the dissatisfaction (though it
was the straw that broke the camel's back). Rather, they thought that the
other male player was becoming, shall we say, interested in another female
player, and that, since this game was experimenting with allowing the
players much greater than normal input into the running of the game, the
male player was deliberately biassing the game for the female and against
them. This, frankly, was paranoid BS. (There was more to the situation
than I will state here, but I know that no-one, other than perhaps me,
knows the full story.)
Now, apart from the obvious problems caused by the triple-R (Romantic
Relationships in Roleplaying), it seems that the players with the hassles
were quite prepared to lie, even to direct questions concerning the game
from the GM (myself). If the players will lie to the GM (or be, shall we
say, deceptive, as in the first example) how can a GM possibly be expected
to discern the true desires of the players?
Now, I have no idea where this post is going, but I'll be interested to
see what replies it inspires.
--
Why is it that when I do finally get around to creating a .sig file, I
can't think of a single witty thing to say in it?
The Wraith
Jason Stokes
In article <5jpn7q$rah$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>, zzt...@mailbox.uq.edu.au
(Travis Hall) wrote:
[Two MASSIVE paragraphs snipped - I write long paragraphs, but yours are
ridiculous!]
> Now, apart from the obvious problems caused by the triple-R (Romantic
> Relationships in Roleplaying), it seems that the players with the hassles
> were quite prepared to lie, even to direct questions concerning the game
> from the GM (myself). If the players will lie to the GM (or be, shall we
> say, deceptive, as in the first example) how can a GM possibly be expected
> to discern the true desires of the players?
There is no easy solution to the situation, but I think there's an
etiquette involved in all this. In any role-playing group there are
multiple people with multiple interests. No campaign can satisfy everyone
in every detail. However, I just had a brainwave:
*Role reversal!*
Usually you might have the players design the characters, and the GM
design the setting and the campaign. Try it the other way round: the
players design the setting in great detail, and the GM designs characters
to go with the setting. Of course, the GM would embellish any ideas the
players have, but that way the players would ostensibly play in a world
they ask for, and the GM gets to referee characters that he specifically
designed to fit the campaign!
> Now, I have no idea where this post is going, but I'll be interested to
> see what replies it inspires.
Here I am trying to sound like a more experienced roleplayer than I
actually am :) However, I've learned two things from my roleplaying
"career." One, don't bother with palladium games, two, give up when
roleplaying seems so expensive you can't keep up with the Joneses.
Russell Penney
In article <5jlqfo$2...@news-central.tiac.net>, f...@tiac.net (frj) wrote:
<SNIP>
>It can get worse. I've had players basically come out and say "No
>heavy roleplaying - we just want to have fun, not think about what the
>character is feeling". That one floored me. Sometimes its time to walk
>away in disgust. (A solution I save as an absolute last resort).
>
You disappoint me. If you can't have fun roleplaying then you have missed the
whole point. Yes, there are serious campaigns where, unless your character is
a prankster, levity is frowned apon BUT there are times for a rollicking,
Monty Haul, kick ass, STUPID campaign. Many people I know play multiple
campaigns of both kinds. I have played both kinds. I will not make a statement
that I prefer one kind over another, it depends on so many factors.
Frankly, if you can't or won't play a "fun" campaign or module then you aren't
a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer should be able to fit into any sort of
character, genre and style well. AND a good GM should be able to handle
whatever the characters do as long as they act in character! If they insist on
trying to shoot up the town on a covert mission ( for example ) you should
take them aside and say something ( or let it degenerate into a "fun" campaign
). If they don't turn down the right corridor because they couldn't figure out
the obscure clue in ancient aramaic you let them find on a scrap of paper 5
sessions ago right, then you deserve to be taken aside and told in no
uncertain terms what an idiot you are.
If you are digusted that your players want to have fun, think what it is like
for them to be forced into your campaign. Maybe they are just responding to
your style. Remember too much angst is bad for your spleen and they may just
be venting. :-)
Russell
Carl D. Cravens
On 25 Apr 97 14:32:08 GMT, rpe...@cyberspace.net.au (Russell Penney) wrote:
>A good roleplayer should be able to fit into any sort of character,
>genre and style well.
This again. It's like saying that, since you're a gamer, you should be
happy to play chess, Magic, roleplaying or gin rummy. They're all
games, so you should be able to play any of them and be happy. Phooey.
You complain that we're supposed to have fun, but your qualifications
for a "good" roleplayer don't involve fun at all... they involve
"fitting in".
Who cares what makes a "good" roleplayer? I want to play a "fun"
character in a "fun" setting. ("Fun" being used interchangable with
interesting, exciting, challenging, etc. depending on just what I
happend to want out of it at the time.)
--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net) * Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver
* http://www2.southwind.net/~phoenyx
My reality check just bounced.
Travis Hall
Russell Penney (rpe...@cyberspace.net.au) wrote:
: In article <5jlqfo$2...@news-central.tiac.net>, f...@tiac.net (frj) wrote:
:
: >It can get worse. I've had players basically come out and say "No
: >heavy roleplaying - we just want to have fun, not think about what the
: >character is feeling". That one floored me. Sometimes its time to walk
: >away in disgust. (A solution I save as an absolute last resort).
: You disappoint me. If you can't have fun roleplaying then you have
: missed the whole point. Yes, there are serious campaigns where, unless
: your character is a prankster, levity is frowned apon BUT there are
: times for a rollicking, Monty Haul, kick ass, STUPID campaign. Many
: people I know play multiple campaigns of both kinds. I have played both
: kinds. I will not make a statement that I prefer one kind over another,
: it depends on so many factors.
Actually, I think you might have missed the whole point. The previous
poster did not say that his campaign was ultra-serious, just that the
players refused to play anything that involved the feelings of the
characters. If the game does not take that into account, where is the
roleplaying? It is possible to have a light-hearted campaign, yet still
expect roleplaying from the players.
: Frankly, if you can't or won't play a "fun" campaign or module then you
: aren't a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer should be able to fit into
: any sort of character, genre and style well.
We all play to have fun, even if the campaign is a "serious" one. Serious
roleplayers play serious roleplaying games because they consider serious
roleplaying to be fun. If by a "fun" campaign, you mean a "silly"
campaign, then I think you will find there are quite a few people around
who do not enjoy that sort of game - in other words, they do not have fun
in a "fun" campaign.
None of which indicates that the player in question is not a good
roleplayer. Being able to fit into any sort of character, genre and style
may be a valid part of a definition of a good roleplayer, but just because
a player can do it, does not mean that he necessarily finds it enjoyable.
I myself like to play Paranoia precisely once each year. You see,
Paranoia, for me, is fun that once, but if I play a second game without a
break of about 10 months, minimum, I find it tiresome. So, I can do it,
but I don't enjoy it.
: AND a good GM should be able to handle whatever the characters do as
: long as they act in character!
In the short term, yes, but if a GM does not enjoy the type of play that
occurs in his game, how can you really expect him to keep running it? The
GM is also there to have fun.
: If they don't turn down the right corridor because they couldn't figure
: out the obscure clue in ancient aramaic you let them find on a scrap of
: paper 5 sessions ago right, then you deserve to be taken aside and told
: in no uncertain terms what an idiot you are.
This is certainly not something I would consider to be the mark of a
serious, roleplaying-oriented campaign. Most serious campaigns will not
include the expectation that the PCs will do everything right - in fact, I
think most will allow them plenty of opportunities to screw up, because
without those decisions, the players will not have any control over the
story. Then the GM might as well be telling a story to a mere audience.
Most serious campaigns place great emphasis on the decisions of the
players and the characters, hence the requirement for roleplaying.
: If you are digusted that your players want to have fun, think what it is like
: for them to be forced into your campaign. Maybe they are just responding to
: your style. Remember too much angst is bad for your spleen and they may just
: be venting. :-)
Roleplaying != angst
I didn't get the impression that the previous poster was disgusted with
his players wanting to have fun. Rather, I thought he was disgusted with
his players wanting to have fun *without roleplaying*. He has organised a
game so that all participants have a chance to roleplay, and if that is
what he is interested in, he has every right not to run a non-roleplaying
campaign. Remember, the GM is there to have fun too.
Mary K. Kuhner
rave...@southwind.net (Carl D. Cravens) writes:
>On 25 Apr 97 14:32:08 GMT, rpe...@cyberspace.net.au (Russell Penney) wrote:
>>A good roleplayer should be able to fit into any sort of character,
>>genre and style well.
>This again. It's like saying that, since you're a gamer, you should be
>happy to play chess, Magic, roleplaying or gin rummy. They're all
>games, so you should be able to play any of them and be happy. Phooey.
Exactly. For me, if my fellow players or GM say "Let's just play to have
fun, let's not do anything emotional or involving" that's like saying
"Let's skip dinner and just have dessert." Fine. Whatever you like,
but if I'm hungry I'm likely to go look for a restaraunt. I don't find
a meal composed purely of dessert fulfilling, and I don't find games
that are purely fluff fulfilling. A session now and then, okay, but
not a whole campaign.
If that makes me a bad roleplayer, I'm quite happy to be a bad roleplayer.
I enjoy the games I do play in, and avoid the ones I can't enjoy.
I'm not trying to win any "versatile player of the month" awards.
I would personally find it impossible as a GM to put in the kind of
work a campaign demands, week after week, if the players weren't doing
something that interested me. They don't have to do what I want them
to--mine frequently don't--but they need to do something that's fun
for me to participate in, which generally means it has to have some
emotional and/or intellectual bite to it. Again, I may not win any
prizes for this attitude, but it's what works for me.
I think GMs that can run anything, no matter how dull they find it,
and not burn out are mythical. I've never met one. Maybe if it were
a more highly paid profession.... Even then the result would likely
be hackwork, like books written purely to pay the bills. From the
players' point of view, it's a bad idea to bore the GM to death;
even if the game survives, it's likely to lose its sparkle. Most
GMs run *much* better if they are interested in the game.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Lise Mendel
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
> >On 25 Apr 97 14:32:08 GMT, rpe...@cyberspace.net.au (Russell Penney) wrote:
> >>A good roleplayer should be able to fit into any sort of character,
> >>genre and style well.
<snip>
> if my fellow players or GM say "Let's just play to have fun, let's not do
> anything emotional or involving" that's like saying "Let's skip dinner and
> just have dessert." Fine. Whatever you like, but if I'm hungry I'm
> likely to go look for a restaraunt. I don't find a meal composed purely
> of dessert fulfilling, and I don't find games that are purely fluff
> fulfilling. A session now and then, okay, but not a whole campaign.
For me, there's a limit to how "fun" a game can get if there's nothing
emotional or involving in it. I got bored of games that were _nothing_
but hack and slash, solve the puzzle and get the treasure by the time I
was fifteen...
True, I (for one) can be amused by a session of mindless fluff now and
then, but it has to be, at least, funny (which has to be
emotional/involving to some degree). Every so often, when I really need
to get out agression by going out and *killing* something, I play a
computer game or log onto a mud...
<snip>
> I think GMs that can run anything, no matter how dull they find it,
> and not burn out are mythical. I've never met one. Maybe if it were
> a more highly paid profession.... Even then the result would likely
> be hackwork, like books written purely to pay the bills. From the
> players' point of view, it's a bad idea to bore the GM to death;
> even if the game survives, it's likely to lose its sparkle. Most
> GMs run *much* better if they are interested in the game.
>
> Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Absolutely!
Michele Ellington
Mary K. Kuhner (mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu) wrote:
> (1) The GM is upfront about what kind of game he intends to run, and
> selects players accordingly; or
> (2) The GM doesn't make up his mind what kind of game it is until a
> couple of weeks into the campaign, when he's gotten to know players and
> characters; or
> (3) The GM asks the players what they want, and persistantly keeps
> asking until he gets an adequate answer.
I would add the caveat that at least the tone must be set before
character generation. We lost one Champions campaign to the
fact that we had three "four color" heroes and one "serial killer
for justice" on the same team. While all of the players could have
played in either mindset, it was impossible to mix the characters.
Unfortunately, it was our most "sensitive" player who was the
killer. She could neither deal with changing characters herself
nor the other three players changing out, she felt both were
criticisms of her play style, despite our protestations to the
contrary. So the game died, there were brief bad feelings erased
by the GMs intelligent return to a campaign setting we had played
together happily before.
I generally want to know if the predominant tone will be silly
or serious; the characters heroic, mundane or dark; and
the general mortality level; all of which has an impact on
personality development for my characters. Of course, most GMs
stay within a certain range, and once you have played with them
for a couple of years, you know what to expect.
Michele Ellington
Travis Hall (zzt...@mailbox.uq.edu.au) wrote:
> If the players will lie to the GM (or be, shall we
> say, deceptive, as in the first example) how can a GM possibly be expected
> to discern the true desires of the players?
We had a rather lengthy prior discussion in the newsgroup on the
definition of lying, and I'd really rather not open that can of
worms again. But it seems to me that lying is a strong word
for the two situations described (which, of course, I can only
address based on what you wrote, I am sure there are further
details).
In situation #1, it seemed that the player who offered an opinion
really just misunderstood what he was proposing. A PBEM GM recently
offered a similar menu to the recruited band of players. One of the
possibilities was "historic". I selected this category as one of
my primary choices, but made sure to point out that if he literally
meant "historic" as in recreation of actual earth history, I wanted
it last on my list, not second. If he meant traditional fantasy
historic play, then it ranked second. But not everyone would
think of alternatives to their instinctive response to an idea.
In situation #2, it seemed more like a polite untruth than an
outright lie. These players were not in your regular group, I
don't know if you were close friends. But if I were new to a
gaming group and was asked if I were enjoying the game, I would
be loathe to complain. In a game where I know the GM well,
I am compfortable with talking frankly with the GM about problems
within the game and with other players.
Michele Ellington
Russell Penney (rpe...@cyberspace.net.au) wrote:
> In article <5jlqfo$2...@news-central.tiac.net>, f...@tiac.net (frj) wrote:
> >It can get worse. I've had players basically come out and say "No
> >heavy roleplaying - we just want to have fun, not think about what the
> >character is feeling". That one floored me. Sometimes its time to walk
> >away in disgust. (A solution I save as an absolute last resort).
Run Paranoia. Even I, who am into heavy role-playing
and depise "silly" games (I am just an old stick in
the mud, I don't like comedy much at all) enjoy the
occasional game of Paranoia as a way to let my hair
down and just goof off.
> You disappoint me. If you can't have fun roleplaying then you have missed the
> whole point. Yes, there are serious campaigns where, unless your character is
> a prankster, levity is frowned apon BUT there are times for a rollicking,
> Monty Haul, kick ass, STUPID campaign. Many people I know play multiple
> campaigns of both kinds. I have played both kinds. I will not make a statement
> that I prefer one kind over another, it depends on so many factors.
The poster didn't say they couldn't have fun role-playing. My
perception is that they were saying they couldn't have fun running/
playing a rollicking, Monty Haul, kick ass campaign. I know I
certainly could not. One evening of Paranoia is enough mindless
humor to last me at least a year. Mindless pursuits bore me just
about immediately. Don't read any tone of superiority there, life
would be easier with a more generous sense of humor. My inability
to laugh at the merely stupid, to regard only clever humor and razor
wit as meritorius of a belly laugh, are a social disadvantage.
A Lapalme
Mary K. Kuhner (mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu) writes:
> rave...@southwind.net (Carl D. Cravens) writes:
>
>>On 25 Apr 97 14:32:08 GMT, rpe...@cyberspace.net.au (Russell Penney) wrote:
>>>A good roleplayer should be able to fit into any sort of character,
>>>genre and style well.
>
>>This again. It's like saying that, since you're a gamer, you should be
>>happy to play chess, Magic, roleplaying or gin rummy. They're all
>>games, so you should be able to play any of them and be happy. Phooey.
>
> Exactly. For me, if my fellow players or GM say "Let's just play to have
> fun, let's not do anything emotional or involving" that's like saying
> "Let's skip dinner and just have dessert." Fine. Whatever you like,
> but if I'm hungry I'm likely to go look for a restaraunt. I don't find
> a meal composed purely of dessert fulfilling, and I don't find games
> that are purely fluff fulfilling. A session now and then, okay, but
> not a whole campaign.
>
Ditto on everything Mary said.
>
> I think GMs that can run anything, no matter how dull they find it,
> and not burn out are mythical. I've never met one. Maybe if it were
> a more highly paid profession.... Even then the result would likely
> be hackwork, like books written purely to pay the bills. From the
> players' point of view, it's a bad idea to bore the GM to death;
> even if the game survives, it's likely to lose its sparkle. Most
> GMs run *much* better if they are interested in the game.
>
Absolutely and, to tell the truth, it still stuns me to I hear or read
comments which seem to have missed that. Why on Earth would anyone GM a
game they find boring is totally beyond me (I guess it does happen in
circles where no one wants to GM - that makes me question the quality of
the game though)? Like Mary, I don't believe in the mythical GM who can
run any type of game have consistently enjoy it or the mythical player who
can play in any game and consistenly enjoy it.
Alain
--
The Advocacy Gathering(Aug 13-16, 1997): The game I intend to run:
http://www.intranet.ca/~lapalme/rpg/advocacy/shir.html
Can-Games XXI - the largest and longest running Gaming Convention in Canada
http://www.magmacom.com/~sharvey/cangames.htm - Sept 19-21, 1997
Russell Penney
In article <5jrho6$el4$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>,
zzt...@mailbox.uq.edu.au (Travis Hall) wrote:
>Actually, I think you might have missed the whole point. The previous
>poster did not say that his campaign was ultra-serious, just that the
>players refused to play anything that involved the feelings of the
>characters. If the game does not take that into account, where is the
>roleplaying? It is possible to have a light-hearted campaign, yet still
>expect roleplaying from the players.
I read the previous poster's message differently to you.
>
>: Frankly, if you can't or won't play a "fun" campaign or module then you
>: aren't a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer should be able to fit into
>: any sort of character, genre and style well.
>
>We all play to have fun, even if the campaign is a "serious" one. Serious
>roleplayers play serious roleplaying games because they consider serious
>roleplaying to be fun. If by a "fun" campaign, you mean a "silly"
>campaign, then I think you will find there are quite a few people around
>who do not enjoy that sort of game - in other words, they do not have fun
>in a "fun" campaign.
No we do not all play to have fun ( I do ). Go to a large Con and watch the
jockeying for social status and real or percieved power. Some are there only
becuase they cannot express themselves in society. They need a place in a
group and that is the main reason they roleplay.
>This is certainly not something I would consider to be the mark of a
>serious, roleplaying-oriented campaign. Most serious campaigns will not
>include the expectation that the PCs will do everything right - in fact, I
>think most will allow them plenty of opportunities to screw up, because
>without those decisions, the players will not have any control over the
>story. Then the GM might as well be telling a story to a mere audience.
>Most serious campaigns place great emphasis on the decisions of the
>players and the characters, hence the requirement for roleplaying.
Unfortunatly I have played too many modules and campaigns where players don't
have much of a choice. I tend to drop out very quickly. In fact I have stop
playing most Con modules for that very reason.
>I didn't get the impression that the previous poster was disgusted with
>his players wanting to have fun. Rather, I thought he was disgusted with
>his players wanting to have fun *without roleplaying*. He has organised a
>game so that all participants have a chance to roleplay, and if that is
>what he is interested in, he has every right not to run a non-roleplaying
>campaign. Remember, the GM is there to have fun too.
I read it another way but your points are valid. What is roleplaying? I dont
see roleplaying as having to simulate a characters every emotion. I have
played a module where I ( and most other people who played ) empathised so
much with the characters that I choked up and felt drained for ages. But for
me that was an extreme. Most of the time I don't see the need, I tend to
concentrate on the major feelings and I always realise that it is a GAME!
Maybe I am just old and bitter. Roleplaying was more fun in the good old days.
:-)
Russell
Travis Hall
Michele Ellington (ad...@rgfn.epcc.edu) wrote:
:
: Travis Hall (zzt...@mailbox.uq.edu.au) wrote:
: > If the players will lie to the GM (or be, shall we
: > say, deceptive, as in the first example) how can a GM possibly be expected
: > to discern the true desires of the players?
: We had a rather lengthy prior discussion in the newsgroup on the
: definition of lying, and I'd really rather not open that can of
: worms again.
I guess I missed that during my fairly lengthy hiatus, recently ended.
: But it seems to me that lying is a strong word
: for the two situations described (which, of course, I can only
: address based on what you wrote, I am sure there are further
: details).
:
: In situation #1, it seemed that the player who offered an opinion
: really just misunderstood what he was proposing.
Except that he admitted to only proposing it to attempt to persuade me to
run a high-magic setting, something he knows I am not interested in
running. (And that's the one I termed "deceptive", rather than a lie.)
: In situation #2, it seemed more like a polite untruth than an
: outright lie. These players were not in your regular group, I
: don't know if you were close friends.
The boyfriend had previously played in a campaign I ran lasting two years.
The female had started roleplaying through the loose circle of gamers I
have played with for years. The game had already lasted several months. I
think they were as close to my "regular group" as could be found without
taking the players from my other game from there to here as a group. And
they were asked politely, but firmly and directly, several times, and
stated (unconvincingly) each time that they were completely satisfied with
the game.
But specific examples aside, even if the player is only being polite, how
can a GM possibly be expected to solve problems when players lie about
their existance? We all know that it goes on, even if we couch it in
rather more diplomatic terms.
Travis Hall
Russell Penney (rpe...@cyberspace.net.au) wrote:
: In article <5jrho6$el4$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>,
: zzt...@mailbox.uq.edu.au (Travis Hall) wrote:
:
: >We all play to have fun,
:
: No we do not all play to have fun ( I do ). Go to a large Con and watch the
: becuase they cannot express themselves in society. They need a place in a
: group and that is the main reason they roleplay.
Okay, there are a few who play at cons for status. (If by "large Con" you
mean one of the big US-style Cons, I'd love to attend - are you offering
to pay my airfare? :) ) But even there, most people (at least at the cons
the size we get in Australia) most players are there for fun, and there
isn't really much to prove in the campaign situation. My main point still
stands - even "serious" roleplayers play to have fun.
: Unfortunatly I have played too many modules and campaigns where players don't
: have much of a choice. I tend to drop out very quickly. In fact I have stop
: playing most Con modules for that very reason.
You seem to have fallen foul of the "linear" or "structured" style of
module design, particularly common at cons. I have not noticed that the
problems of over-structured modules are more prevalent in "serious" games.
: I read it another way but your points are valid. What is roleplaying? I dont
: see roleplaying as having to simulate a characters every emotion. I have
: played a module where I ( and most other people who played ) empathised so
: much with the characters that I choked up and felt drained for ages. But for
: me that was an extreme. Most of the time I don't see the need, I tend to
: concentrate on the major feelings and I always realise that it is a GAME!
But most roleplaying groups have the expectation that at least some
attention will be payed to the emotions and personalities of the players.
Extremes aren't necessarily required, but no emotion is also an extreme,
and not considered terribly interesting by many roleplayers.
Lise Mendel
<note: aus.games.roleplay taken out of followups to save bandwidth)
Travis Hall <zzt...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> But specific examples aside, even if the player is only being polite, how
> can a GM possibly be expected to solve problems when players lie about
> their existance? We all know that it goes on, even if we couch it in
> rather more diplomatic terms.
Sie can't. Why should sie be?
It's the GMs responsibility to handle the game world. Obviously the GM
also wants to make sure that everyone is having a good time. So do the
players (one hopes).
Because the GM "runs" the game, quite often sie tries to avoid inviting
players who don't get along with each other to the game. That's probably
the way it should be, but it's easy to blur the line between that and
acting as "social director" and trying to _solve_ any problems that come
up between players during play. What it comes down to is that, unless
the players take some responsiblilty for keeping the game playable, it
won't happen.
You can't _make_ people get along if they don't want to. You can try to
get them to tell you about it. You can encourage them to talk to each
other (if the problem is obviously between/among players). You can even
put the game "on hold" until they work it out themselves. None of this
works unless the players work at it.
Sometimes all you can do is to split up a group/toss out a player (or
player faction) to keep the peace. I wouldn't recommend either of the
above as a first resort, but occasionally it comes down to that.
Mary K. Kuhner
>But specific examples aside, even if the player is only being polite, how
>can a GM possibly be expected to solve problems when players lie about
>their existance? We all know that it goes on, even if we couch it in
>rather more diplomatic terms.
This is certainly frustrating. Since there's not much you can do to
change players' behavior directly, about the only thing you could do
would be to look at the social climate of your group and see if
there is any way it could be changed to encourage more honesty and
constructive criticism.
One thing to try would be to encourage one or more of your less-
troublesome or more experienced players to bring something up in
public. This demonstrates that complaints are allowed, and if the
problem players see you tackling a complaint and making changes,
they may be prompted to be more honest.
Another would be setting aside some real discussion time. I had a
game which was not going very well, but no one wanted to spoil our
after-game dinners with a big hairy discussion. (I am not good at
hearing criticism right after I run, anyway, and my players knew that.)
We ended up setting some time aside *before* a gaming session to
talk about things, and discovered that the game had a real problem
(one player couldn't grasp how the magic worked, so her character
was at a severe disadvantage) which could be fixed with effort.
These won't always work, of course. Some combinations of people just
don't make functional gaming groups no matter how hard everyone
tries.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
ke...@melb.alexia.net.au
In article <33631...@pluto.ais.com.au>,
rpe...@cyberspace.net.au (Russell Penney) wrote:
>
>
> In article <5jrho6$el4$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> zzt...@mailbox.uq.edu.au (Travis Hall) wrote:
> > rpe...@cyberspace.net.au (Russell Penney) wrote:
> >
> >: Frankly, if you can't or won't play a "fun" campaign or module then you
> >: aren't a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer should be able to fit into
> >: any sort of character, genre and style well.
> >
> >We all play to have fun, even if the campaign is a "serious" one. Serious
> >roleplayers play serious roleplaying games because they consider serious
> >roleplaying to be fun. If by a "fun" campaign, you mean a "silly"
> >campaign, then I think you will find there are quite a few people around
> >who do not enjoy that sort of game - in other words, they do not have fun
> >in a "fun" campaign.
>
> No we do not all play to have fun ( I do ). Go to a large Con and watch the
> jockeying for social status and real or percieved power. Some are there only
> becuase they cannot express themselves in society. They need a place in a
> group and that is the main reason they roleplay.
Heya Russel. Long time no see. You have to remember Russel, our
gaming/convention society is very small and incestuous. A lot of US
cities have more RPers than Australia as a whole, and even in Australia a
lot of RPing happens that has nothing to do with conventions. What we
call a large con would be a minor affair in places like the US or the UK.
And, from having spoken to international guests over the years, we do
things very differently at our cons than people in other parts of the
world do. So, while I agree the whole con scene is just that, a con, its
not representative of either good or desirable RPing.
> Unfortunatly I have played too many modules and campaigns where players don't
> have much of a choice. I tend to drop out very quickly. In fact I have stop
> playing most Con modules for that very reason.
Again it appears that you are conflating convention tournament modules
and published modules with RPing in general. From my experience the best
RPing campaigns are very different from any module ever published. For a
start, not being constrained by the requirement to make for a fair
competition, and hence providing pregenerated characters, a GM running
ther own campaign can provide more freedom of choice to the players. Con
modules are designed as competition set pieces. Winnning such
competitions regularly tends to require the skills you've described.
Fortunately, normal RPing (hopefully) uses entirely different skills.
> Maybe I am just old and bitter. Roleplaying was more fun in the good old days.
> :-)
Try getting together with a group of friends and RPing without the
competitive overtones of a convention. It can be a lot of fun. I suspect
the problem is that many of our contemporaries in the Aust. RPing
community only have time to RP at conventions, and that brings our their
competitive urges as they try to prove to the young guns they we oldsters
still have what it takes to win tournments. That's one reason I stopped
going to conventions, so that I could socialise with my friends and RP in
a non-competitive environment.
>
> Russell
Phil Keast
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Richard Canning
>Run Paranoia. Even I, who am into heavy role-playing
>and depise "silly" games (I am just an old stick in
>the mud, I don't like comedy much at all) enjoy the
>occasional game of Paranoia as a way to let my hair
>down and just goof off.
If you don't like Paranoia there are many other options
- Macho Women with Guns
- Bunnies and Burrows
- Tales from the Floating Vagabond
- Toon
- Anything written to be a Serious World of Darkness module.
All of these are great for evenings of hilarity and relaxation.
The seriousness of role playing is set by the group, not by any one person (even
the GM) If you feel you are being Catharted beyond what you can deal with
either complain or leave Sydney.
Jocularity rules
Richard Canning
It is good to see a large group of Role Players from many different backgrounds
and styles get together and write a Freeform like this. It shows a hitherto
unexplored level of teamsmanship and cooperation. There are such good
characters and plots and interwoven opinions and intrigue in this thread that it
is really a freeform in the making.
Well done chaps and keep up the good work.
Richard Canning
eli...@netspace.net.au
Jason Stokes
In article <862193531.316454@mh_linux.microhelp.com.au>,
rcan...@melbourne.microhelp.com.au wrote:
It's a good thread on Usenet. Uncommon but fantastic when you get them.
As far as players not getting what they want - remember the it's not just
the GM needing to read the minds of the players. There will be
differences in what *each player* expects as well. Sometimes you will
even get an asshole who insists on screwing it up for everyone else.
I think a good player should be able to adapt to whatever campaign is
given to them, and get used to it. Compromises will be necessary.
Equally, a GM will have to respond to the player's needs. However, the
key, as in any collaborative effort, is *compromise*.
One other thought - if you are a GM and your players *are* dissatisfied
with your carefully constructed campaign, well, don't underestimate the
power of reconceptualising and retconning! TV shows do it all the time.
Just change the focus! Say your players want magic in your scrupulously
realistic fifteenth century Italy. Hard? Not at all! You already have
that most people of that time believed in magic, so make their beliefs
somewhat justified. Of course, it's never credible to have wizard's
towers suddenly spring up overnight (unless we use a reality shift device,
such as a portal to an alternate universe) but most settings are quite
flexible.
Psychohist
John Mack describes the "Tigger syndrome", in which players claim to be
willing to play everything, but end up not being interested in what the
gamesmaster prepares for, and asks:
Has anyone else had this problem? Is it a universal
phenomenon? Has anyone dealt with it successfully,
and if so, how?
I think it happens to everyone, to a greater or lesser extent. My
solution is to keep the preparation work as part of the overall game
background, and go on and prepare something that seems more likely to be
interesting to the players. Over and over again, if necessary.
Looking at your example:
My own Tigger Syndrome experience was also with the
Vampire game system. I had designed a redemption-based
chronicle, and most stories were to revolve around
Humanity (a crucial game stat) and the gaining or loss
of it. Again, after a lengthy series of missed cues
which ended with an NPC coming right out and pointing
out the way to a recalcitrant PC, the player and I
finally had it out, with him declaring,
"I don't want to play anything that involves morality".
This completely floored me, as I consider Humanity and
the degeneration rules to be central to Vampire.
It strikes me that since the game involves morality, and the player has
been playing it so far, his blanket statement doesn't reflect his true
feelings. Based on your background description, it seems that what the
player really means is, 'I don't want to play anything that involves being
moral'.
No problem. Figure out what it means when the player plays immoral
characters, instead. In _Vampire_, this should be easy - as I recall,
there are explicit rules on the loss of Humanity points, including
catastrophic consequences for the player when Humanity goes to zero.
Warren Dew
Lise Mendel
Jason Stokes <j.st...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I think a good player should be able to adapt to whatever campaign is
> given to them, and get used to it. Compromises will be necessary.
> Equally, a GM will have to respond to the player's needs. However, the
> key, as in any collaborative effort, is *compromise*.
I disagree. Being a good player doesn't necessarily mean adapting to
_any_ campaign played. There are some genres/subjects/tones that
somebody might simply not be interested in.
IMNSHO it doesn't reflect badly on someone if they don't wish to play in
every game considered by the GM. Of course there are times when one
feels constrained to play in a game that doesn't suit for meta game
reasons. In this case, expressing one's discontent is a _vital_ step in
dealing with the situation.
Lise Mendel
Mr Damien Moore
rcan...@melbourne.microhelp.com.au (Richard Canning) writes:
>>Run Paranoia. Even I, who am into heavy role-playing
>>and depise "silly" games (I am just an old stick in
>>the mud, I don't like comedy much at all) enjoy the
>>occasional game of Paranoia as a way to let my hair
>>down and just goof off.
>If you don't like Paranoia there are many other options
> - Macho Women with Guns
> - Bunnies and Burrows
> - Tales from the Floating Vagabond
> - Toon
- Hunter Planet
(There will be a very silly Hunter Planet at Capricon VII)
> - Anything written to be a Serious World of Darkness module.
:-p :-p
Not _all_ of them are bad. Just anything with the word 'Diablerie'
(Actually, I must concede your point - with the exception of Loom of Fate
and Alien Hunger, Whitewolf can't write a single scenario).
Eccles
A Lapalme
In article <862193531.316454@mh_linux.microhelp.com.au>,
rcan...@melbourne.microhelp.com.au (Richard Canning) wrote:
>It is good to see a large group of Role Players from many different
backgrounds
>and styles get together and write a Freeform like this. It shows a
hitherto
>unexplored level of teamsmanship and cooperation. There are such good
>characters and plots and interwoven opinions and intrigue in this thread
that it
>is really a freeform in the making.
>
>Well done chaps and keep up the good work.
>
Eh, we do what we can. Wait 'till some of the silly arguments come back
though. Maybe you'll change your mind then. :)
Alain
Alain
The Advocacy Gathering --> The Shir Brothers' Game
For more information --> http://www.intranet.ca/~lapalme/rpg/advocacy/shir.html
e-mail: lap...@brelca.on.ca
Gordon Sellar
In article <199704280...@a-ko.digex.net>, cata...@access.digex.net
(Lise Mendel) wrote:
> I disagree. Being a good player doesn't necessarily mean adapting to
> _any_ campaign played. There are some genres/subjects/tones that
> somebody might simply not be interested in.
>
> IMNSHO it doesn't reflect badly on someone if they don't wish to play in
> every game considered by the GM. Of course there are times when one
> feels constrained to play in a game that doesn't suit for meta game
> reasons. In this case, expressing one's discontent is a _vital_ step in
> dealing with the situation.
Yes, that is very true. I know of a group I played with in the past in
which there was a player who reacted very badly to a scene that occurred
in a RP game, which was I must add initiated by what could be generally
termed an "evil" or "villainous" character. Of course none of the players
(which were mixed group of male and female) had any idea that she would
react so badly to it, but we learned at that point that sometimes you just
can't know what is going to bother players (let alone appeal to them).
Luckily, everything was cleared up and she didn't quit, and in the
meantime sought counselling for the problem.
But it raises the question of what is acceptable in game play. I have seen
NPC's ranging from Holocaust victims (ghosts) to rape victims, to the
mentally ill, etc. Any of these topics could certainly make a player
anxious or put a player off a game, and they are sometimes things that
just arise in play, right?
How do others deal with this sort of issue?
--
I think I am, I think I am ....
- Descartes
Lise Mendel
Gordon Sellar <gas...@mail.usask.ca> wrote:
>
> But it raises the question of what is acceptable in game play. I have seen
> NPC's ranging from Holocaust victims (ghosts) to rape victims, to the
> mentally ill, etc. Any of these topics could certainly make a player
> anxious or put a player off a game, and they are sometimes things that
> just arise in play, right?
>
> How do others deal with this sort of issue?
If someone is really bothered, my group either:
1) Stops the game THEN AND THERE until it's been talked around (when
it's a big problem)
or
2) The concerned player talks to the GM in private about the problem.
Sometimes the plotline will be dropped, sometimes the player will sit
out a few scenes. Sometimes nothing has to be done, since the GM wasn't
doing what the player thought sie would with it...
But communication is the key.
Avi Wolfsthal
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 01:43:13 -0700, John Mack
<ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>A.A. Milne introduced the character of Tigger to his novels, something
>like this:
<big snip>
>Has anyone else had this problem? Is it a universal phenomenon? Has
>anyone dealt with it successfully, and if so, how? This has bugged me
>for a while, as I have not only watched at least one talented GM drop
>out of the scene over this, but have not been able to bring myself to GM
>for some years.
I had this problem one time many years ago. It was the usual story. I
devised this wonderful adventure with nifty tricks and puzzles but the
players insisted on getting everything wrong. What usually develops
out such situation is a players - GM conflict where the GM has to lead
the players by the nose and constantly tell them: ‘You cannot do that.
Why? Because it won’t work, that’s why!’....
It was after that bitter experience that I began to develop what I now
call the open adventure. In the open adventure the GM plans as little
as possible in advance and just plays along with the players. I used
to tackle the party with problems I myself did not know how to solve,
but whenever they came up with something reasonable or funny or just
good role-play (and I think role-play is everything) I’d go along.
To my initial surprise this campaign was a big success. The players
were naturally very satisfied as they seemed to get everything right
and I allowed them to do almost anything. I was also very satisfied
because I didn’t have to scarp anything I work on and moreover I had
the time of my life since the setting was so flexible as to allow
anything I wanted. I devised marvelous plots on the fly that were
constantly changing and developing. I found myself playing and not
explaining my idea of a campaign to a group of players bored to the
point of wishing their GM dead.
It was even a greater surprise when I discovered that none of the
players suspected that I was inventing everything as we went and that
convinced me that the open campaign is at least as good as a carefully
planned one. Before each session I would sit down an roughly plan just
a few steps ahead. I also had a stack of all kinds of NPCs and
dungeons that I throw into the game from time to time.
It was only natural that when I started my PBeM not very long ago I
created another open campaign. Playing a PBeM open campaign proved to
be even more fun. I let the players actually take part in creating the
story. For example let’s say a character finds a treasure. I don’t
tell him - ‘you found a sword’ and note to myself that the character
now has a +1 sword. Instead I let the player describe the sword and
decide what it is.
The problem is keeping the balance. A character has no notion of
pluses, he just knows that the sword is magical and that some swords
are better than other. Well, if the player is a good role-player he
will be able to create the needed character-player separation and play
accordingly. Also, since this is an open campaign, a simple sword+1
might later turn out to be a sword+1 that fires fireballs, and later
the player will find his character hunted down by the rightful owner
of sword or just by someone that fancies it.
Remember, it’s easy to balance a campaign when you’re the GM. If a
player finds a powerful sword then it’ll have an ego to match. They
players solve a problem to easily, then just create a bigger one. You
control everything and the great fun about it is that the players
think you have planned the whole thing. It’s much more easy to balance
an open campaign than to create a campaign that would suit the
preferences of all players. It has a little bit of each player so
everyone is satisfied and the GM finds it easier to control the
campaign since he doesn’t have to make his players go in a certain
predetermined direction. The open campaign just avoids any conflict
buy eliminating the causes.
The same goes for character design. I let the players decide their
abilities rather than roll. A player is more likely to enjoy (and play
well) a character that he like and that fits his or her description of
a hero. In my PBeM there is one character who has 18/00 strength (very
high if you’re not familiar with AD&D. actually this has a probability
of 1/21600 to happen), but the player balanced the character
beautifully giving it some traits and drawbacks that keep it balance
and really give the game more flavor.
The PBeM I’m running was blessed with a group of fine role-players
that seem to make the most of out this concept. I greatly enjoy the
campaign as I think the role-play is just superb and some of the posts
are sheer poetry. Anyone who’s interested can check out
http://www.brm.com/~wolfie/cursum_perficio.html where you’ll find more
information about our campaign.
Cheers,
Wolfie.
Psychohist
Travis Hall posts, in part:
But specific examples aside, even if the player
is only being polite, how can a GM possibly be
expected to solve problems when players lie about
their existance? We all know that it goes on,
even if we couch it in rather more diplomatic terms.
By reading their minds, of course.
Seriously, there are ways of overcoming people's polite reactions and
getting to their real feelings. Keep asking in a way that indicates you
don't mind a somewhat negative comment - sometimes people will open up
only after being asked several times. Demonstrate that you are willing to
make adjustments - 'I'm not completely satisfied with how the game is
going, myself; any idea what kind of changes I should make?' If they know
(or think) there are going to be changes anyway, they may be more willing
to participate in shaping them.
Most importantly, when responding to any criticisms, focus on the changes,
and not on why things are the way they are. If you offer even the
smallest bit of explanation about the status quo, many players will assume
that you'd really rather not change things, and clam up.
Warren Dew
Mary K. Kuhner
>But it raises the question of what is acceptable in game play. I have seen
>NPC's ranging from Holocaust victims (ghosts) to rape victims, to the
>mentally ill, etc. Any of these topics could certainly make a player
>anxious or put a player off a game, and they are sometimes things that
>just arise in play, right?
>How do others deal with this sort of issue?
I think about all you can reasonably do is try to have good lines of
communication with the rest of your group (whether you're GM or player)
so that if someone is upset, s/he will feel free to say so.
I ran something kind of nasty about undead babes ripped from their
mothers' wombs for a player who turned out to be pregnant. What can
you do? Um, apologize, and get the game to go somewhere else as soon
as possible. (Not only was she upset, but her character's in game
reactions were strong enough that *I* was upset. The material was
more disturbing in play than it had sounded in prep--which I find is
often true with horror scenarios. Either they flop, or they're
disturbing even to the GM.) But there was really not much I could
have done in advance. No matter how well you know players, you won't
have a complete inventory of their touchy points (they may not be
aware of all of them themselves). My husband and I still surprise
each other with this sort of thing occasionally. We threw away one
subplot in _Paradisio_ because I turned out to be a lot more squicked
by a highly contageous lethal plague than either the GM or I would have
expected.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
ELEANOR J.L. HOLMES
> It is a definite problem and a difficult one to overcome. I've seen in
> a number of myraid ways, from "no politics" to "no ethical challenges"
> to "no combat" to "no romance". I've also seen it from GMs, in one
> case a GM who had no interest in character development and experience
> improvements (despite wanting to run a series of connected scenarios
> spanning a year or more of character's lives) to GM's who wanted "No
> religious involvement, overtones or importance" in a non-modern
> setting.
We've had a worse case in our Shadowrun group - we've got one person who
doesn't want to do anything to do with organised crime, another who hates
combat and wants to roleplay EVERYTHING, another who hates roleplaying
and just wants to plan strategy and solve puzzles... and we *all* take
turns at GMing. I've taken a lot of aspirin thanks to this group :)
Lady Jestyr
------------------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect... in a world full of icebergs
------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes s42...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503
------------------------------------------------------
scott....@3do.com
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970502...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au>,
>
>
> > It is a definite problem and a difficult one to overcome. I've seen in
> > a number of myraid ways, from "no politics" to "no ethical challenges"
> > to "no combat" to "no romance". I've also seen it from GMs, in one
> > case a GM who had no interest in character development and experience
> > improvements (despite wanting to run a series of connected scenarios
> > spanning a year or more of character's lives) to GM's who wanted "No
> > religious involvement, overtones or importance" in a non-modern
> > setting.
>
> We've had a worse case in our Shadowrun group - we've got one person who
> doesn't want to do anything to do with organised crime, another who hates
> combat and wants to roleplay EVERYTHING, another who hates roleplaying
> and just wants to plan strategy and solve puzzles... and we *all* take
> turns at GMing. I've taken a lot of aspirin thanks to this group :)
>
Well my little block as a GM is no romance. I don't feel i do it well,
and the whole subject makes me distinctly uneasy. Also I have a low to no
sex incidents in the game either. Even the l0ow lethality runs tend to be
commercial, or corporate team model type games involving starships.
I just am basically not very good at NPC's involvementwiththe p.c.'s
except in rare cases. Social situations are the hand grenade I have to
fall on sometimes to keep the game going, and interesting for the
players, but they are a drain for ne, and not as much fun as a combat, or
a walk through the woods (so to speak.)
Scott
Scott
John Mack
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------12E070F91769
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> In article <gas129-2904...@janus2-17.usask.ca> gas...@mail.usask.ca (Gordon Sellar)
> writes:
> >But it raises the question of what is acceptable in game play. I have seen
> >NPC's ranging from Holocaust victims (ghosts) to rape victims, to the
> >mentally ill, etc. Any of these topics could certainly make a player
> >anxious or put a player off a game, and they are sometimes things that
> >just arise in play, right?
> The material was
> more disturbing in play than it had sounded in prep--which I find is
> often true with horror scenarios. Either they flop, or they're
> disturbing even to the GM.) But there was really not much I could
> have done in advance. No matter how well you know players, you won't
> have a complete inventory of their touchy points (they may not be
> aware of all of them themselves).
In Sydney (Australia), at the height of the Experimental Role-Playing
movement, it was de rigeur for convention modules to deal with such
topics as the holocaust, urban decay, suicide, racism, child abuse etc.;
every third module seemed to feature a rape or someone who had survived
one. One module that I heard about, cast the players as a squad of SS
troops in the second world war; in one scene, they were required to
exterminate a village (sort of a WWII My Lai), but all players got
through it with no major trauma. However, the very next scene (a tavern
scene which had been designed as comic relief) had many players freaking
out, and expressing trouble coping, much to the amazement of the GM
("But guys, you've just been machine-gunning four-year-olds!").
The consensus seems to be that, above all, you should warn players in
advance _exactly_ what they are getting into, in as much detail as you
can without spoiling the plot. However, the moral of the above story is
that you can never guess what's going to push people's buttons, and all
you can really do is hope you are playing with people who can handle
their own reactions.
--------------12E070F91769
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="GAMING.SIG"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="GAMING.SIG"
John Mack
Remove SPAMBLOCKER. from email address to reply
Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/rpg/rpgpage.htm
--------------12E070F91769--
Jason Stokes
On Sat, 03 May 1997 01:15:15 -0700, John Mack <ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>In Sydney (Australia), at the height of the Experimental Role-Playing
>movement, it was de rigeur for convention modules to deal with such
>topics as the holocaust, urban decay, suicide, racism, child abuse etc.;
>every third module seemed to feature a rape or someone who had survived
>one. One module that I heard about, cast the players as a squad of SS
>troops in the second world war; in one scene, they were required to
>exterminate a village (sort of a WWII My Lai), but all players got
>through it with no major trauma. However, the very next scene (a tavern
>scene which had been designed as comic relief) had many players freaking
>out, and expressing trouble coping, much to the amazement of the GM
>("But guys, you've just been machine-gunning four-year-olds!").
>The consensus seems to be that, above all, you should warn players in
>advance _exactly_ what they are getting into, in as much detail as you
>can without spoiling the plot. However, the moral of the above story is
>that you can never guess what's going to push people's buttons, and all
>you can really do is hope you are playing with people who can handle
>their own reactions.
I've never explored "dark" topics very much in my roleplay - except for
tropes gathered from horror films, which everyone I used to GM watched and
were cool with. It seems to me unlikely that a roleplay would have
traumatic effects on someone any more than playing in an amatuer dramatics
society, *however*, if such events as what you described are going on I
think players should be informed of their rights in the same way they are
before participating in a psychology experiment. The most important rights
in a psych experiment, especially ones involving emotion are:
1) You have the right to withdraw participation at any time.
2) You have the right to be debriefed and discuss the implications of the
experiment with the experimenter.
Unfortunately, because of the methodology of some psychology experiments
subjects can't always be informed of the exact details of what the subject
is getting into - however, when this is possible this should also be
undertaken.
These ideas could easily be adapted to roleplaying.
--
Jason Stokes: j.stokes @ bohm.anu.edu.au
Ph: +61 06 291 93 84
Michele Ellington
John Mack (ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au) wrote:
> One module that I heard about, cast the players as a squad of SS
> troops in the second world war; in one scene, they were required to
> exterminate a village (sort of a WWII My Lai), but all players got
> through it with no major trauma. However, the very next scene (a tavern
> scene which had been designed as comic relief) had many players freaking
> out, and expressing trouble coping, much to the amazement of the GM
> ("But guys, you've just been machine-gunning four-year-olds!").
Were I willing to play in a module that required me to machine
gun four year olds, I would be extremely offended to find anything
intended to be comical appearing in the scenario. Playing out
the darkest aspects of the human soul is one thing. Expecting
us to laugh at it is quite another. The most frightening thing
for me at the theater screening of horror films is when members
of the audience laugh at the people being brutalized and
eviscerated on the screen. I think, "These are my neighbors!"
Now, in some cases, the laughter is a nervous attempt to relieve
tension. But in most, it is a failure of SOD, and an (IMO)
horrifyingly inappropriate perception of pain as comedy.
Joshua Macy
Michele Ellington wrote:
>
> The most frightening thing
> for me at the theater screening of horror films is when members
> of the audience laugh at the people being brutalized and
> eviscerated on the screen. I think, "These are my neighbors!"
> Now, in some cases, the laughter is a nervous attempt to relieve
> tension. But in most, it is a failure of SOD, and an (IMO)
> horrifyingly inappropriate perception of pain as comedy.
I think it much more likely that it's a reaction to failure of SOD
than a sadistic glee in perceived pain.
Frank G. Pitt
In article <8626049...@dejanews.com>, scott....@3do.com wrote:
>
>In article
><Pine.SOL.3.91.970502...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au>,
>"ELEANOR J.L. HOLMES" <s42...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > It is a definite problem and a difficult one to overcome. I've seen in
>> > a number of myraid ways, from "no politics" to "no ethical challenges"
>> > to "no combat" to "no romance". I've also seen it from GMs, in one
>> > case a GM who had no interest in character development and experience
>> > improvements (despite wanting to run a series of connected scenarios
>> > spanning a year or more of character's lives) to GM's who wanted "No
>> > religious involvement, overtones or importance" in a non-modern
>> > setting.
>>
>> We've had a worse case in our Shadowrun group - we've got one person who
>> doesn't want to do anything to do with organised crime, another who hates
>> combat and wants to roleplay EVERYTHING, another who hates roleplaying
>> and just wants to plan strategy and solve puzzles... and we *all* take
>> turns at GMing. I've taken a lot of aspirin thanks to this group :)
>>
>
>Well my little block as a GM is no romance. I don't feel i do it well,
>and the whole subject makes me distinctly uneasy.
Ditto. Then again, I never understood why anyone intelligent would put
up with all that soppy stuff anyway, and luckily met a woman who felt
much the same way. So, we weighed up the options, and decided that
getting married was better for both of us, and did so. That was
16 years ago now.
Frankly, I've never understood romance and probably never will.
Seduction, on the other hand....
>Also I have a low to no
>sex incidents in the game either.
Hmm, me too. But not by choice. I find most other people are
queasy with it, though I personally don't have a problem with it.
>I just am basically not very good at NPC's involvementwiththe p.c.'s
>except in rare cases. Social situations are the hand grenade I have to
>fall on sometimes to keep the game going, and interesting for the
>players, but they are a drain for ne, and not as much fun as a combat, or
>a walk through the woods (so to speak.)
I don't have that problem though.
We once roleplayed a whole week of beat cops in a US metropolis
and only ever fired our guns on the range, even though we were shot
_at_ several times.
"Combat situations" all the way, but almost every situation was
solved without active violence from the players. The nearest we got to
gratutitous violence was when one player came _this_ close to slapping
the mayor's wife in the face !
Ah well, I suppose, seeing as I met my wife while we were playing
Freddie & Clara Einsford-Hill in Pygmalion, I've never been one
to have problems in social situations.
Though I can understand people wanting to avoid them, you can rarely
find good people to talk to in "mundane" settings, my favourite
concept is Oscar Wilde's response to his hostess asking him if he
was enjoying himself, which was somethng like
"Of course madam, there's nothing else here to enjoy"
Frankie
Mary K. Kuhner
>Ditto. Then again, I never understood why anyone intelligent would put
>up with all that soppy stuff anyway, and luckily met a woman who felt
>much the same way. So, we weighed up the options, and decided that
>getting married was better for both of us, and did so. That was
>16 years ago now.
>Frankly, I've never understood romance and probably never will.
>Seduction, on the other hand....
A lot of what most of us mean when we say "romance" in games *is*
seduction. It was a major subtheme in the _Radiant_ space opera
game, for example: particularly the spectacular and amusing results
of Markus and Black's determination to seduce each other. (Both of
them might reasonably be described as some kind of vampire; and Markus
came home quite comprehensively energy-drained and said "I should have
known that was a bit too easy.")
I'd be happy never to see another stock Luke&Leia subplot, but that's
not all there is to romance. The key love affair in one of Carl Rigney's
PBeM games was between my character and a fire elemental. Not an
easy relationship, but certainly an intense one.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John Mack
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------15791A877692
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michelle Ellington wrote:
> John Mack (ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au) wrote:
> > However, the very next scene (a tavern
> > scene which had been designed as comic relief) had many players freaking
> > out, and expressing trouble coping, much to the amazement of the GM
> > ("But guys, you've just been machine-gunning four-year-olds!").
> Were I willing to play in a module that required me to machine
> gun four year olds, I would be extremely offended to find anything
> intended to be comical appearing in the scenario.
Sorry! I mispoke. I shouldn't have said "comic relief", but rather
"light relief", ie. a less gruelling scene between horrors. The module
in no sense trivialised Nazi atrocities - quite the opposite.
--------------15791A877692
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="GAMING.SIG"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="GAMING.SIG"
John Mack
Remove SPAMBLOCKER. from email address to reply
Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/rpg/rpgpage.htm
--------------15791A877692--
scott....@3do.com
In article <gbuaz4Fv...@mundens.gen.nz>,
> >I just am basically not very good at NPC's involvementwiththe p.c.'s
> >except in rare cases. Social situations are the hand grenade I have to
> >fall on sometimes to keep the game going, and interesting for the
> >players, but they are a drain for ne, and not as much fun as a combat, or
> >a walk through the woods (so to speak.)
>
> I don't have that problem though.
>
Well one of my players spotted it when she contrasted a couple of NPC's.
the ones that were former P.C.'s wth the serial number filed off tended
to have much deeper interactions that the off the cuff nobles I had to
come up with for the Oortweiss Winter Ball. The characters talked with
most of the Nobles, but tended to be friendly, and have longer
conversations with the Archduke, Lord Broadwing, and the captain of the
guard, who were all retread old P.C's I am much too DIP to be able to
whip off NPC's facilly.
> We once roleplayed a whole week of beat cops in a US metropolis
> and only ever fired our guns on the range, even though we were shot
> _at_ several times.
Sort of a 'Hill Street Blues' Campaign? When they started shoeing that in
Re-runs in the afternoons, a loal GM did a camaign based on it. Not a
whole lot 'earthshaking' happened, but the neighborhood became very real
for the players. i wasn't in the game, but I enjoyed hearing the stries
from those that were.
>
> "Combat situations" all the way, but almost every situation was
> solved without active violence from the players. The nearest we got to
> gratutitous violence was when one player came _this_ close to slapping
> the mayor's wife in the face !
>
> Ah well, I suppose, seeing as I met my wife while we were playing
> Freddie & Clara Einsford-Hill in Pygmalion, I've never been one
> to have problems in social situations.
Pardon? I am not getting the reference.
>
> Though I can understand people wanting to avoid them, you can rarely
> find good people to talk to in "mundane" settings, my favourite
> concept is Oscar Wilde's response to his hostess asking him if he
> was enjoying himself, which was somethng like
> "Of course madam, there's nothing else here to enjoy"
Actually the opposite is true for me, as i tend to be fairly social. It
does not 'energixe me' but i am interested in hearing other people's
stories, or gleaning opinions from them on films or books. And I find
that often Mundanes' have more varied interests than the undersocialized
hardcore fans still living in their parent's basement. but i digress. It
is just that I can not portray anything beyond the sheer surface of an
NPC,unless I have some 'play time' in their heads.
scott....@3do.com
In article <5kg8m1$7...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
> In article <gbuaz4Fv...@mundens.gen.nz> fra...@actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
> >Ditto. Then again, I never understood why anyone intelligent would put
> >up with all that soppy stuff anyway, and luckily met a woman who felt
> >much the same way. So, we weighed up the options, and decided that
> >getting married was better for both of us, and did so. That was
> >16 years ago now.
>
> >Frankly, I've never understood romance and probably never will.
> >Seduction, on the other hand....
>
> A lot of what most of us mean when we say "romance" in games *is*
> seduction. It was a major subtheme in the _Radiant_ space opera
> game, for example: particularly the spectacular and amusing results
> of Markus and Black's determination to seduce each other. (Both of
> them might reasonably be described as some kind of vampire; and Markus
> came home quite comprehensively energy-drained and said "I should have
> known that was a bit too easy.")
Hmmm. Nope, don't get it. Didn't have much of this in the game either. I
suppose I tend to run rather cold games with any sort of 'emotional
release happening when the bullets fly'. But even in the fantasy games
there was usually a failry cool surfce over things.
>
> I'd be happy never to see another stock Luke&Leia subplot, but that's
> not all there is to romance. The key love affair in one of Carl Rigney's
> PBeM games was between my character and a fire elemental. Not an
> easy relationship, but certainly an intense one.
>
> Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Ah... I was in one of Carl's PBEM's... Fond, fond memories. He certainly
was a good GM. He was never boring, that's for sure.
Joshua Macy
scott....@3do.com wrote:
>
...snip...
> Well one of my players spotted it when she contrasted a couple of NPC's.
> the ones that were former P.C.'s wth the serial number filed off tended
> to have much deeper interactions that the off the cuff nobles I had to
> come up with for the Oortweiss Winter Ball. The characters talked with
> most of the Nobles, but tended to be friendly, and have longer
> conversations with the Archduke, Lord Broadwing, and the captain of the
> guard, who were all retread old P.C's I am much too DIP to be able to
> whip off NPC's facilly.
>
I've started to use Central Casting (actually, a simplified automated
version that I developed) to give the NPCs a detailed background; I find
that doing so makes them much more real to me, more like the results of
DIP.
scott....@3do.com
Joshua Macy
scott....@3do.com wrote:
>
> In article <336DD1...@ix.netcom.com>,
> jm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > I've started to use Central Casting (actually, a simplified automated
> > version that I developed) to give the NPCs a detailed background; I find
> > that doing so makes them much more real to me, more like the results of
> > DIP.
>
> Automated central Casting? Tell me more...
>
Well, I don't know if you want to know more about the Central Casting
part, or the automated part, so I'll assume both.
Central Casting: Heroes of Legend is a generic role-playing
supplement published by Task Force Games and written by Paul Jaquays.
It's a series of inter-related charts to help you quickly flesh out a
character (PC or NPC) in a fair amount of detail. It doesn't touch on
stats, really, just on events in the character's life prior to entry in
the game. It's pretty nifty, and I recommend it highly as a jog to
inspiration. The problem with it, though, is it takes a long time to go
through a complete generation (up to a half-hour of flipping back and
forth looking up tables, rolling dice, and writing down the results), so
I never used it as much as I would have liked to.
I finally decided that if I wanted to get some real use out of the
concept, I'd have to write a computer program to do the book-keeping, so
I did. I started with the CC:HoL book, and stripped down the charts to
an amount that I could stand to do the data-entry for (as well as
genericizing some of the incredibly specific results in the tables,
eliminating a lot of the niceties of applying modifiers to the die rolls
based on previous die rolls for Social Status and the like). At the
moment, I have something where I can press a button, and get results
like:
BACKGROUND : Nomadic
SOCIAL LEVEL : Destitute
LEGITIMACY : Legitimate
HEAD OF FAMILY
FAMILY HEAD : Two Parents
NOMADIC OCCUPATIONS : Craftsman
CRAFTS A : Bowyer
BIRTH CIRCUMSTANCES
NUMBER SIBLINGS : 0
PLACE OF BIRTH : Family home
UNUSUAL BIRTH : Nothing
CHILDHOOD EVENTS:
EVENTS OF YOUTH : Something wonderful occurs
SOMETHING WONDERFUL : Forced into unwanted marriage, but comes to love
spouse
EVENTS OF YOUTH : Tragedy occurs
TRAGEDIES : Character is responsible for a death
OTHER PEOPLE : Known folks
DEATH SITUATIONS : Died of disease
ADOLESCENT EVENTS:
EVENTS OF YOUTH : Special Event
EVENTS OF YOUTH : Riots and unrest caused by scarcity due to war
ADULT EVENTS:
EVENTS OF ADULTHOOD : Helps an unusual person, who promises to remember
the kindness
EVENTS OF ADULTHOOD : Learns an unusual skill
UNUSUAL SKILLS : Gourmet Cooking
EVENTS OF ADULTHOOD : Joins the military
MILITARY EVENTS : nothing yet
Obviously, this is fairly rough, and requires some massaging to turn
it into a reasonable character story (for one thing, the marriage would
probably have to be moved into events of adolescence at the earliest,
although that depends on the cultures of your world), and I haven't
completly finished the tables (note where Military Events says "nothing
yet"), but I find knowing even this much about an NPC can help me make
the person seem real when I GM, even if I never use any of the
back-story when talking with the PCs; the NPC has ceased to be a blank
slate upon which a profession or function has been written.
Christopher G. Passeno
Finally I have released my first Page...
I can illustrate via computer your characters shield......
Give me a try
Jeremy Richard
Russell Penney <rpe...@cyberspace.net.au> wrote in article
<33631...@pluto.ais.com.au>...
> >: Frankly, if you can't or won't play a "fun" campaign or module then
you
> >: aren't a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer should be able to fit into
> >: any sort of character, genre and style well.
> >
> >We all play to have fun, even if the campaign is a "serious" one.
Serious
> >roleplayers play serious roleplaying games because they consider serious
> >roleplaying to be fun. If by a "fun" campaign, you mean a "silly"
> >campaign, then I think you will find there are quite a few people around
> >who do not enjoy that sort of game - in other words, they do not have
fun
> >in a "fun" campaign.
>
> No we do not all play to have fun ( I do ). Go to a large Con and watch
the
> jockeying for social status and real or percieved power. Some are there
only
> becuase they cannot express themselves in society. They need a place in a
> group and that is the main reason they roleplay.
> Unfortunatly I have played too many modules and campaigns where players
don't
> have much of a choice. I tend to drop out very quickly. In fact I have
stop
> playing most Con modules for that very reason.
Welcome to modern gaming. RPG companies have destroyed the hobby with
their greed. When the hobby first got really moving adventures were far
better
because they gave the PCs the freedom to do whatever they wanted.
Adventures
were frameworks; and not stories, and EVERYTHING relied on the decisians
the
players made for their characters.
What destroyed the hobby was that not everyone could be a game master.
It
takes a LOT of skill to create a good adventure with a good plot, and a
good
storyline and then adapt to the actions of the PCs. At first role-playing
companies
were happy to have any kind of a following. But as time when on they got
too
intrested in their profit margins. The guys running RPG companies realized
that
game-masters bought all the expensive books; so they re-defined the nature
(so
to speak) of role-playing to make it easier to run so everyone could be a
game
master and would buy all the expensive books.
Nowadays most game-mastering is crap; there are very few REAL GMs left
out there. Once upon a time when a bunch of game masters got together
(which
was kind of infrequent) they would discuss ideas for modules; and
techniques for
adapting to the actions of PCs. Today everyone who is a gamer is a GM (a
long
time ago groups were lucky to have a GM, today everyone in a gaming group
usually takes turns running thier own game). When they get together they
discuss
ways to simulate the freedom of the PCs without actually giving them
freedom to
act, and how to force the PCs to adapt to their plot; without letting the
PCs know
they are being forced to adapt. Most GMs try and tell a story (or at best
simulate
an interactive movie or old "choose your own adventure" book) nowadays;
instead
of trying to create a framework and letting the PCs determine what is going
to
happen next.
I don't know if I am verbalizing this well. But I cannot see how
anyone can
have fun GMing in most groups nowadays. I mean; what is the point of
designing
the ultimate fiendish trap; if the PCs are going to walk into it; no matter
what? I mean
isn't half the fun of a fiendish trap that it might be avoided?
Furthermore; how can
anyone create a living, breathing campaign world; if the GM is afraid to
change
anything to conform with the actions of the PCs? Sure it's hard to work out
the
results of a king's death, or a princess's seduction; but that is half of
what being
a good GM is about. I fail to see the point of a game where things are
designed
so that anytime a PC even thinks about doing something major, 20000 high
powered NPCs swoop out of no-where to humble him. Are all PCs supposed to
remain poor and reckless forever?
> >I didn't get the impression that the previous poster was disgusted with
> >his players wanting to have fun. Rather, I thought he was disgusted with
> >his players wanting to have fun *without roleplaying*. He has organised
a
> >game so that all participants have a chance to roleplay, and if that is
> >what he is interested in, he has every right not to run a
non-roleplaying
> >campaign. Remember, the GM is there to have fun too.
> I read it another way but your points are valid. What is roleplaying? I
dont
> see roleplaying as having to simulate a characters every emotion. I have
> played a module where I ( and most other people who played ) empathised
so
> much with the characters that I choked up and felt drained for ages. But
for
> me that was an extreme. Most of the time I don't see the need, I tend to
> concentrate on the major feelings and I always realise that it is a GAME!
Role-playing has multiple definitions. In an RPG role-playing's main
requirement
is that the PCs have free will; REAL free will, not simulated free will. I
refer to the
current style of gamemastering (which consists of techniques to trick the
PCs
into doing what the GM wants them to, to further a pre-written story) as
Storytelling;
after WhiteWolf's lame "World of Darkness" games.
Generally speaking; if your running a fantasy game where there is an
evil
duke has kidnapped a princess and is holding her prisoner; and the PCs are
going to be comissioned by her brother to rescue her; then it is an RPG.
All
the traps and events are set up by the GM; and the GM controls them in
response to the PCs actions as they move through the framework.
If your running a fantasy game where there is an evil duke who has
kidnapped
the princess and is holding her prisoner, and the PCs are going to be
comissioned
by her brother to rescue her. As the PCs set out they are going to be
ambushed
by the Duke's men, thrown into his "maze of death", BARELY fight their way
out
only to meet this dragon they have to convince to fly them over the wall of
the
Duke's fortress; where they will battle the Duke's elite guards to a
standstill only
to be defeated by the duke, thrown in his torture chamber, escape, and then
fight the duke again (this time successfully) and return to the Prince with
the
princess for their reward..... This would not be an RPG; it's scripted. A
GM running
this kind of game would fudge the dice so the PCs are defeated when they
are
supposed to be, make sure they hit all the right traps; and otherwise make
sure
things turn out the way he expects. I call this "storytelling" and it's
what 90% of
the worlds "GMs" do nowadays.
In a REAL RPG, in the above plotline things MIGHT go that way. Of course
the
PCs also might slaughter the duke's men (quite easily), never get thrown
into
the "maze of death", slay the dragon on their way to the castle; sneak over
the
castle wall, and free the princess from the dungeon (sneaking back out)
without
ever meeting the duke or his elite guard! All the elements are in place;
but ANYTHING can happen in a real RPG. That is supposed to be what makes
the
whole damn thing so great. :)
At any rate; I am rambling. All told I feel that role-playing has
nothing to
do with emotions and deep exploration of a character. All you have to do
to play the character; and face it some people are rather shallow (even in
real life). If I my character is Brutal Bruno the barbarian; using violence
to
solve problems (and avoiding diplomacy as something for overcivilized
wimps)
might be PERFECT role-playing.
In general it is the GM's job to police characters before a game starts
to make
sure no one is playing something that messes up the atmosphere he wants to
create. If the GM is running a campaign with the overall plot that the PCs
are
supposed to be a group of royal diplomats; going to the city of darkness as
part of a settlement after a MAJOR war; it is the GMs job to REJECT
characters
like Brutal Bruno who just do not fit in.
Furthermore; it is a GOOD GM who will learn what his players want. A GOOD
GM
will NOT run an adventure that he believes will involve a lot of diplomacy
and stuff
if his players are all Conan wannabee types. An adventure may be a
framework;
but if no one likes the idea; the game will suck. If your a GM and you find
that
your ideas are always differant from those of your players; I recommend
finding
another group. Furthermore if you as a GM feel that you have players who
want
to be disruptive and destructive in the game for no reason other than the
join of
creating chaos... you should find another group. I get sick of hearing
stories
about stupid GMs who talk about how they storytell because when they give
the
PCs freedom they run around trying to ruin the world; just because they can
(without any IC reason). IMHO; that is another time when you refuse to GM
and
find another group. If you can't trust; or get along with your gaming group
at the
gaming table (even if they are friends away from said table) you should
not be
gaming with them.
>>>----Therumancer--->
> Maybe I am just old and bitter. Roleplaying was more fun in the good old
days.
> :-)
>
> Russell
>
Matthew Colville
In article <01bc636a$b8d0b4e0$ee6574cf@cts10521>, "Jeremy Richard"
<Theru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Nowadays most game-mastering is crap; there are very few REAL GMs left
> out there.
I wonder if you're right. I don't know, since I only play with one
group, I have little experience with other groups. In my group, there are
about 8 people. 4 of them are 'GMs.' Each player thinks different people
in the 4 are 'real' GMs.
But no-one in the group thinks that they are *equally* a player and a
GM. One person thinks of himself as a player who, every once in a while,
'gets the itch.' One person is a GM who likes to play every once in a
while.
> I don't know if I am verbalizing this well. But I cannot see how
> anyone can
> have fun GMing in most groups nowadays. I mean; what is the point of
> designing
> the ultimate fiendish trap; if the PCs are going to walk into it; no matter
> what? I mean
> isn't half the fun of a fiendish trap that it might be avoided?
Now you're just being silly. Half the fun of *playing* might be
*solving* the fiendish trap. BUt A: I don't think half the fun would be
walking around it without ever knowing it was there (which would certainly
be 'avoiding' it) and B: half the fun of *designing* a trap is certainly
not watching your PCs walk right past it.
Unless, of course, you just stick it somewhere else. Heheh. . .
> Furthermore; how can
> anyone create a living, breathing campaign world; if the GM is afraid to
> change
> anything to conform with the actions of the PCs? Sure it's hard to work out
> the
> results of a king's death, or a princess's seduction; but that is half of
> what being
> a good GM is about. I fail to see the point of a game where things are
> designed
> so that anytime a PC even thinks about doing something major, 20000 high
> powered NPCs swoop out of no-where to humble him. Are all PCs supposed to
> remain poor and reckless forever?
Again, that's not my experience. In my group, one of the best GMs
let's the players do what they want. And what they want is up to them.
Don't get me wrong, they might not *suceed* but if you went up to Brad and
said "I want to go to war against Count Hasamir," Brad would say "Ok."
Then the two armies clash and if you win, great. But you don't always
have an even chance. If Count Hasamir has 100 times the forces you do,
and you get squished, it isn't because Brad didn't want you to win, it's
because you're an idiot and didn't plan well.
In my campaign, one of the players decided he wanted to make a play for
the throne of the dwarven kingdom of Thurazor. I let him. He lost. He
had an even chance, but the dice went against him. I had no idea how the
battle was going to go and neither did he. I was just as excited about
either prospect. He was not.
> Role-playing has multiple definitions.
Are all definitions equally valid?
> In an RPG role-playing's main
> requirement
> is that the PCs have free will; REAL free will, not simulated free will.
Phooey. First of all, you'd have to prove that we actual human beings
have free-will, which A: better minds than you and I have failed to agree
on, and B: is beyond the scope of this newsgroup.
Secondly, The PC's never have Free Will, nor should they be allowed to
have free will. If you say, because Dave called you a idiot; "I'm going
to attack Dave's character," then I, as a good GM, should at least say
"No, you're not." I should probably also say "Why don't you guys deal
with this elsewhere," and then perhaps "get out."
If you know all about Drow because you read the Monstrous Manual, and
then decide that your character, who has never even ehard of Drow, is
going to act on this information, then I, as GM, *need* to say "No."
In both cases, I am curbing your character's ability to act in any way
which you desire. Or any way in which you desire he should desire. I am
necessarily curbing his free will.
> I
> refer to the
> current style of gamemastering (which consists of techniques to trick the
> PCs
> into doing what the GM wants them to, to further a pre-written story) as
> Storytelling;
> after WhiteWolf's lame "World of Darkness" games.
White Wolf and FASA suffer from the same deficiency: form over
function. Thier problem is: they suck at making modules. That's all.
It's not the GMs that suck, it's the game companies.
The reason they do this is because they've played RPGs and didn't
understand what was going on. A good module sets all the shit up, and
let's the PCs run rampant through it. As a result, amazing moments occur
which no-one could ever have predicted. Things not in the module.
Serendipity & Synergy. Things you will remember for the rest of your
life.
The guys at WW and FASA (well, the Shadowrun branch of FASA) have tried
to take these moments and *institutionalize* them. Hardwire them into the
game and feed the players through it, in an attempt to artificially
produce the moments that would happen spontaneously. This is what you're
experiencing. Modules they read like books because they try to *be* the
action, rather than a catalyst for it.
Ok, yeah, but I think you're giving 'planning ahead' short-shrift. I,
as GM, need to have a fairly good idea of "what happens next." Elsewise
each gaming session lasts exactly as long as it takes for the Players to
make the Next Decision, at which point I go home and figure out What
Happens Next.
As a rule of thumb, I try to give the players three options at every
turn. Three's a good number because it's exactly one more than 'two,'
which becomes obvious. Being exactly one more means I don't have to do
more work than is necessary.
The virtue lies, as it always does, in the path between the two
extremes. Have a dragon, sure, and decide the PCs will meet him. But
when they meet him and what's going on at the time, and what they say,
should be a result of what they did between the time they started and the
time they met him. You, the GM, know every NPCs motivations, so you can
plan to stick NPCs far, far ahead in the timeline. Does this mean you're
controlling the PCs destiny? In a certain sense, yes, of course you are.
But you aren't dictating what choices they make between now and then, or
what they decide to do when they meet him.
In other words, you set up the Dragon, and both the dragon and the PCs
start out with certain motivations, both of which should be open to change
as the players move toward the meeting. So even *you* don't know exactly
what the Dragon's going to do until the meeting happens. You don't *need*
to know. You've already done the work so you'll be able to respond
appropriately when the time comes.
> At any rate; I am rambling. All told I feel that role-playing has
> nothing to
> do with emotions and deep exploration of a character.
If role-playing has no emotional investment, then you're talking about
a Game, not a Hobby. Like an arcade game in which you insert a quarter,
play for a while, then forget about it when you leave.
Sara Hanson
Jeremy Richard wrote:
>
> What destroyed the hobby was that not everyone could be a game master.
> It takes a LOT of skill to create a good adventure with a good plot,
Wouldn't argue with the second point, not so sure about the first.
Over the last few years of being involved with convention roleplaying I
have a few, hopefully relevant, observations.
1. Just because you wrote the module, does not mean you are the person
who can present it in it's best possible light.
The nuber of time I have seen the author of a module totally screw up
the presentation, where one of their other GM's have done a wonderfull
job with exactly the same material defies reality. There are many
wonderfully talented authors who do not have the presence to present the
world they created. This should never mean that their work molders in a
corner. Equally, I have seen many modules where only the author can
fully do it justice, becuase they understand the inner logic or the
universe they created. Sometime this sort of information cannot be
fully explained on paper or in a briefing.
2. Just because you have never GM'ed before doesn't mean you can't.
I have seen some fabulous first time GM's and authors at conventions,
everybody has to start somewhere. The corollory to this of course, is
that experience alone does not a GM make. There are many people out
there who know the rules and have been GMing for years, but still just
don;t quite hold it together. I have seen this in both campaign and
tournament GMing.
Roleplaying is all about expressing the other facets of ourselves that
the real world will not allow us. Whether it be a hero or a thief, all
of these persona's are valid. There is no guild membership for
imagination, and if one person's method of referring doesn't suit you,
then try elsewhere. The whole experience is supposed to be enjoyable on
at least one level, even if it's just that you wish to work off some
angst or let out some anger.
People should be encouraged to try, if they wish to, not told to get
back in their box. Greed probably has been the major downfall in the
hobby in recent years, with Gaming Companies releasing more and more, at
higher and higher prices. But no one forced us to buy them. If no one
bought them, they would either find another way of publishing if they
really need to share their work with us. Or they would drop the price.
Or if they only wanted to make money, they would try to sucker someone
else.
:) Roleplaying is fun, let's not lose sight of that.
--
Sara Hanson
Designer and MacOS Specialist.
********************************************************************
The two most common elements in the Universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity.
Which are you mostly composed of?
Jason Stokes
> People should be encouraged to try, if they wish to, not told to get
> back in their box. Greed probably has been the major downfall in the
> hobby in recent years, with Gaming Companies releasing more and more, at
> higher and higher prices.
I think you forgot: Playtested less and less, and with more and more
inconsistency. And revisions. And complicated rules. And new versions.
And "everything is superceded" do-it-all-again 3rd edition handbook
supplements.
--
"Only a few doubters with tortured minds are ever heard to deny the
existence of God."
Catholic Information Service - "The Catholic home study program"
Jason "Tortured Mind" Stokes: j.stokes @ bohm.anu.edu.au
Jason Stokes
I've repaginated Jeremy's comments for your comfort and convienience.
In article <01bc636a$b8d0b4e0$ee6574cf@cts10521>, "Jeremy Richard"
<Theru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Welcome to modern gaming. RPG companies have destroyed the hobby with
> their greed. When the hobby first got really moving adventures were far
> better because they gave the PCs the freedom to do whatever they wanted.
I don't remember when "the hobby first got started", but I have some
historical stuff around and that sounds like a very bad way of
characterising how the hobby started. As far as I am aware roleplaying
grew out of tactical gaming, and for the first few games (eg Dungeons and
Dragons) it followed that heritage. That means adventures were centered
around a *map*, variously stocked with items, monsters, puzzles and
traps. Things like encumbrance and standard movement rates were thought
to be highly important. And if the players wanted to wander off the map,
maybe go somewhere were there wasn't a map beforehand, they couldn't
because that would screw up the game.
Freedom to do anything they wanted, huh?
> Adventures were frameworks; and not stories, and EVERYTHING relied on the
> decisians the players made for their characters.
> [..]
> The guys running RPG companies realized
> that game-masters bought all the expensive books; so they re-defined the
> nature (so to speak) of role-playing to make it easier to run so everyone
> could be a game master and would buy all the expensive books.
Again, I don't see how you can justify this, historically. If anything
role-playing companies are guilty of making things *harder* for GMs, with
the new generation of games with loose, free-form style rules and
expectations of "emotional investment." The old skills -- Draw a map,
stuff it with monsters, items, traps and puzzles -- aren't relevant
anymore.
Or maybe my D&D background is showing. I'd have to ask some old-hands
what old style role playing was about.
> Once upon a time when a bunch of game masters got together
> (which was kind of infrequent) they would discuss ideas for modules; and
> techniques for adapting to the actions of PCs. Today everyone who is a gamer
> is a GM (a long time ago groups were lucky to have a GM, today everyone in a
> gaming group usually takes turns running thier own game).
Well, one thing about D&D/AD&D is that there was this idea that a GM was a
priveleged soul who was the only one entitled to read the secret
handbook. If you as a player read this book, you risked being "spoiled."
I'm glad that to a large extent this has been de-emphasised. I think
playing and GMing are intimately interelated, and that you are essentially
talking about a time when there was a false economy of GM "scarcity."
> When they get together they discuss ways to simulate the freedom of the PCs
> without actually giving them freedom to act, and how to force the PCs to
adapt
> to their plot; without letting the PCs know they are being forced to adapt.
> Most GMs try and tell a story (or at best simulate an interactive movie
or old
> "choose your own adventure" book) nowadays; instead of trying to create a
> framework and letting the PCs determine what is going to happen next.
This is true -- it's a symptom of the "screenplay" kind of roleplaying.
Most modules adopt this strategy. If the characters get into a fight that
goes against them, the NPC in the party gets them off the hook. If the
characters try to do something outside the scope of the adventure,
something comes along to put them back on the right track. It *is* a
major problem.
> I don't know if I am verbalizing this well. But I cannot see how
> anyone can have fun GMing in most groups nowadays. I mean; what is the point
> of designing the ultimate fiendish trap; if the PCs are going to walk
into it;
> no matter what? I mean isn't half the fun of a fiendish trap that it might be
> avoided?
No. It's no fun spending hours in planning beforehand, if your players
come along and do something that bypasses half of your work. How you
should react in such a situation is a matter of judgement. Usually, you
should act cooly, but think about whether you can introduce some of the
material at a later time in the game, or at another session.
> [Role-playing requires PCs have free will]. I refer to the current style of
> gamemastering (which consists of techniques to trick the PCs into doing what
> the GM wants them to, to further a pre-written story) as Storytelling; after
> WhiteWolf's lame "World of Darkness" games.
> [..]
> Generally speaking; if your running a fantasy game where there is an
> evil duke has kidnapped a princess and is holding her prisoner; and the PCs
> are going to be comissioned by her brother to rescue her; then it is an RPG.
> All the traps and events are set up by the GM; and the GM controls them in
> response to the PCs actions
Maybe this is a useful distinction -- storytelling versus role-playing.
Anyway, I'm in full agreement with the last part of Jeremy's post:
> At any rate; I am rambling. All told I feel that role-playing has
> nothing to do with emotions and deep exploration of a character. All you have
> to do to play the character; and face it some people are rather shallow
(even > in real life). If I my character is Brutal Bruno the barbarian;
using violence
> to solve problems (and avoiding diplomacy as something for overcivilized
> wimps) might be PERFECT role-playing.
YES! Here *that*, White Wolf??
Ok, now some comments on plots, stories and role-playing. There's a
really a continuum from very loose to very directed "plots" in
role-playing. In another thread, someone mentioned they had pretty much
stopped planning ahead at all and just let the players go in whatever
direction they want, and he just adapts to whatever they want to do. This
is one way to role-play and sure saves on prep time, but adds a hell of a
lot of stress to the GM during the session.
On the other extreme, you prepare everything in advance. Every situation,
every encounter is planned to the last detail before it happens. Every
interaction is carefully planned for. If the players try to exercise
their free will, the GM has a number of tricks to get them back on the
right path. Maybe there are a few "branches" in the story, but it is
essentially just a choose-your-own-adventure game.
The middle ground is a planning to a certain extent, but not to the extent
that you have to force the players to bend to your will. Well, not
always. In my games I make it clear -- taking the first "hook" to get the
players involved in the adventure is non-negotiable! Yes, you *do* care
about your friend! You *do* need the money!
One thing I hope people think about: the concept of "plot" isn't
particularly good when applied to adventures. Role-playing is a "medium"
with it's own strengths and limitations. Just like the latest film SFX
blockbuster sounds shallow when translated to movie-tie-in book form, a
film or novel plot is shallow when translated to a role-playing-game
adventure. The stock items of an adventure are probably memorable
characters, interesting special items, and engaging challenges/puzzles.
tc
j.st...@OUT-DAMNED-SPAM.bohm.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) wrote:
>I've repaginated Jeremy's comments for your comfort and convienience.
>In article <01bc636a$b8d0b4e0$ee6574cf@cts10521>, "Jeremy Richard"
><Theru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Welcome to modern gaming. RPG companies have destroyed the hobby with
>> their greed. When the hobby first got really moving adventures were far
>> better because they gave the PCs the freedom to do whatever they wanted.
>I don't remember when "the hobby first got started", but I have some
>historical stuff around and that sounds like a very bad way of
>characterising how the hobby started. As far as I am aware roleplaying
>grew out of tactical gaming, and for the first few games (eg Dungeons and
>Dragons) it followed that heritage. That means adventures were centered
>around a *map*, variously stocked with items, monsters, puzzles and
>traps. Things like encumbrance and standard movement rates were thought
>to be highly important. And if the players wanted to wander off the map,
>maybe go somewhere were there wasn't a map beforehand, they couldn't
>because that would screw up the game.
I do remember when I first started playing D&D (the only game around
back in 1975) and both Jason and Jeremy have some good points. In the
early days there were no modules published at all, and all the games I
played in were similar in style - there was a town where the PCs lived
and there was a dungeon nearby where the PCs went adventuring. As the
characters went up in levels they went to lower levels in the dungeon.
This was all pretty much straight out of the dungeon encounter tables
in the original boxed set, but we didn't worry too much about stuff
like encumberance of movement rates (unless running away from tough
monsters), and there were lots of puzzles and traps.
Certainly there was role-playing and lots of party intrigue, but
nobody tended to mess with the townsfolk because no matter how tough
you were, you KNEW the local wizard or fighter was tougher. In many
ways, though, the adventures were more freeform and the players had
more choices, because there wasn't much in the way of an adventure
outline.
It wasn't until Traveller came along a few years later that we started
to play games with a mission (other than just going and getting
treasure and experience), and by then the first TSR and Judges Guild
modules were appearing, but they weren't very good compared to a lot
of the stuff produced these days.
>> Once upon a time when a bunch of game masters got together
>> (which was kind of infrequent) they would discuss ideas for modules; and
>> techniques for adapting to the actions of PCs. Today everyone who is a gamer
>> is a GM (a long time ago groups were lucky to have a GM, today everyone in a
>> gaming group usually takes turns running thier own game).
In my experience it was more when GMs got together they discussed the
funny ways they had killed PCs, or how to off some annoying
troublemaker without being too blatant about it. Even then several of
the players took turns at GMing, but they always ran separate worlds.
>Well, one thing about D&D/AD&D is that there was this idea that a GM was a
>priveleged soul who was the only one entitled to read the secret
>handbook. If you as a player read this book, you risked being "spoiled."
>I'm glad that to a large extent this has been de-emphasised. I think
>playing and GMing are intimately interelated, and that you are essentially
>talking about a time when there was a false economy of GM "scarcity."
With the original D&D stuff there were no DM only books, but certainly
by the time AD&D started at least 3 or 4 people in our regular group
had worlds of their own, so everyone knew all the rules.
One of the good things about the original D&D stuff is that there were
so few rules so that nobody really worried about how much anybody else
knew.
>> I don't know if I am verbalizing this well. But I cannot see how
>> anyone can have fun GMing in most groups nowadays. I mean; what is the point
>> of designing the ultimate fiendish trap; if the PCs are going to walk
>into it;
>> no matter what? I mean isn't half the fun of a fiendish trap that it might be
>> avoided?
>No. It's no fun spending hours in planning beforehand, if your players
>come along and do something that bypasses half of your work. How you
>should react in such a situation is a matter of judgement. Usually, you
>should act cooly, but think about whether you can introduce some of the
>material at a later time in the game, or at another session.
I agree with Jasaon here. It's no fun at all spending a fair amount of
time and effort in planning unexpected surprises for the party, only
to have them totally ignore it. Forcing the group along the path you
want them to take isn't the answer either, and sometimes you do just
end up having wasted time and effort in design, but often things can
be altered so that the party still gets the challenge of whatever has
been prepared, without feeling that they're being led by a nose-ring.
In Jeremy's original post he discussed (IIRC) the difference between
having the party fight the bad-guys and lose, then escape from prison
and have a final climactic battle (with the GM fudging things to bring
this about) on the one hand, and (if they make the correct choices and
are good enough) completing the adventure the easy way without getting
into trouble.
Neither of these is a bad way of playing, and both are probably used
in most campaigns that I know of. But if the party is getting things
easy all the time the players start to get bored and feel that the
game isn't much of a challenge. Sometimes fudging the occasional
result to that the big climactic battle comes about is a good thing.
The players will often have a greater sense of accomplishment if they
have overcome great adversity to complete their goal.
TC
Jason Stokes
On Mon, 19 May 1997 14:47:15 GMT, tc <t...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>[..]
Never mind that, the post I made yesterday has been lost from my server!
Has there been a cancelbunny let loose on aus.games.roleplay? Does it still
exist on other sites? How annoying!
Why would anyone want to cancel a post as innocent as mine (and about 20
others!)
Sara Hanson
Jason Stokes wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 May 1997 14:47:15 GMT, tc <t...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> >[..]
>
> Never mind that, the post I made yesterday has been lost from my server!
> Has there been a cancelbunny let loose on aus.games.roleplay? Does it still
> exist on other sites? How annoying!
>
> Why would anyone want to cancel a post as innocent as mine (and about 20
> others!)
Ditto!
Jeremy Richard
> >I don't remember when "the hobby first got started", but I have some
> >historical stuff around and that sounds like a very bad way of
> >characterising how the hobby started. As far as I am aware roleplaying
> >grew out of tactical gaming, and for the first few games (eg Dungeons
and
> >Dragons) it followed that heritage. That means adventures were centered
> >around a *map*, variously stocked with items, monsters, puzzles and
> >traps. Things like encumbrance and standard movement rates were thought
> >to be highly important. And if the players wanted to wander off the
map,
> >maybe go somewhere were there wasn't a map beforehand, they couldn't
> >because that would screw up the game.
>
> I do remember when I first started playing D&D (the only game around
> back in 1975) and both Jason and Jeremy have some good points. In the
> early days there were no modules published at all, and all the games I
> played in were similar in style - there was a town where the PCs lived
> and there was a dungeon nearby where the PCs went adventuring. As the
> characters went up in levels they went to lower levels in the dungeon.
> This was all pretty much straight out of the dungeon encounter tables
> in the original boxed set, but we didn't worry too much about stuff
> like encumberance of movement rates (unless running away from tough
> monsters), and there were lots of puzzles and traps.
I feel even today that rules are highly important. I feel that the
comment
"The rules are meant to be guidelines; change anything you want" in so many
RPGs has been warped from it's original intent.
Rules are important because they effect what they characters can do;
and
what their chances of success are. Players understand their characters and
make desicians for them based on their capabilities.
I feel that the comment about "rules being guidelines" was meant to
mean
that the GM and players should sit down before a game; and decide what
rules
are going to be used. Any rules changes are fine; but they need to be set
up
before a specific campaign begins. That way the Players will be certain of
how things are supposed to work.
I do not believe that the GM has the right to change the rules in
mid-game
without player approval (and usually a full approval of all players).
Nothing sucks
more than getting a PC screwed because a GM spontaneously changes the
rules when your character does something inconveinent for the plot. All
told
if your mage casts a spell that works in X fashion; and the GM changes it
to Y fashion AFTER he casts it; and the mage incidently dies as a result of
this change; that is poor GMing. It is also poor GMing to let a PC work
themself
into a situation where they are relying on a specific power; and then
changing
how that power works in the midst of the situation; and letting the PC get
screwed because of it (ie "Yeah well; I woudln't have ever started that
fight
with the medusa if gaze reflection had a 40% chance of failure").
Of course I also tend to believe that you need to trust the integrity of
your
players. If you have a group that will insist (in a poorly written game)
that they
can swim in non-magical full plate; and then refuse to allow for a change;
you
should not be GMing for this group. Blatent stupidity; is blatent
stupidity.
> Certainly there was role-playing and lots of party intrigue, but
> nobody tended to mess with the townsfolk because no matter how tough
> you were, you KNEW the local wizard or fighter was tougher. In many
> ways, though, the adventures were more freeform and the players had
> more choices, because there wasn't much in the way of an adventure
> outline.
>
> It wasn't until Traveller came along a few years later that we started
> to play games with a mission (other than just going and getting
> treasure and experience), and by then the first TSR and Judges Guild
> modules were appearing, but they weren't very good compared to a lot
> of the stuff produced these days.
Errrr; my understanding of the origins of role-playing are a bit
differant from
yours. A couple years ago TSR ran an article on the history of role-playing
in Dragon; that combined with my own sources has formed this following
picture:
Role-playing was an exercise in mindless dungeon bashing (like you
describe)
in the beginning because of the "Castle Blackmoor" game. You see many game
writers in the beginning had a lot of good ideas; but little in the way of
writing
skills. Role-playing started when wargamers started running very small
scale
battles using midevil wargame rules; and setting up plots for conflicts
based off
of various popular fantasy novels. A guy named David Arnenson made a game
called "Castle Blackmoor" which was a wargame with rules specifically for
this style of wargaming. The rules were fairly flexible and the people
started
creating their own storylines for the battles taking place in the castle
that was
the setting for this game. Eventually David Arnenson got together with a
guy
named Gary Gygax and the two of them created a game called "Dungeons and
Dragons" which was the first true role-playing game. However their writing
skills
(combined with preconceived notions about this kind of game), and David
Arnenson's previous work led to people viewing "Dungeons and Dragons" as
a variation of "Castle Blackmoor" where you could run battles anywhere; not
just within the castle. In fact I have in the past read some very old
college wargaming
newsines (well handouts actually) that define "Dungeons and Dragons" this
way
and suggest ways of merging it with the mechanics from "Castle Blackmoor"
to
make it more playable (it's kind of funny nowadays to see how far everyone
missed the point).
Eventually when the first campaign setting (Blackmoor) and adventures
came
out people figured out what the hell what the game was supposed to be. Many
embraced it; many quickly abandoned it. For a while RPGers were on the rim
of the wargaming community (RPGs were regarded very similarly to how
collectable
card games were regarded a few years ago). Thos who did game; tromped
around
dungeons killing things and collecting treasure; because wargaming was a
reflex; and many had visions of Castle Blackmoor still dancing through
their
heads (especially given the Blackmoor setting).
Greyhawk; and it's original modules were the things that did the most for
turning RPGs into their current form. It was the second and third
generation
Greyhawk modules (those that were actually printed; rather than appearing
in amateur wargaming newsines) and the old Judge's Guild stuff that truely
captured the essence of gaming.
Old modules are far superior to new ones (which is one of the reasons
why
people still buy them; and search for them) because they presented
intresting
plots; and a well written framework. New modules do not even come close to
allowing for the level of free will and player initiative that works of art
like "Temple
of Elemental Evil", "Against the Giants", and "Against the Giants"
captured. Most
adventures today force the PCs along a certain path; and the same things
happen
irregardless of what the PCs do (unless the PCs die; which ends the
module). The
"Grim Harvest" series for Ravenloft is a good example of what sucks in
modern
adventure modules.
Fun Fact: Blackmoor still exists today (kind of). Many people think it
is dead.
The Mystara / D&D known world setting is Blackmoor. It is just far in the
future
of the ORIGINAL Blackmoor world; so much is supposed to have changed. The
old D&D modules (Adventures in Blackmoor, Temple of the Frog, City of the
Gods,
and The Duchy of Ten) make this point rather clear.
Traveller in general was only cool because it was one of the first
science
fiction games; also when it first started it had better writers
(proportionatly)
than TSR did. If you want to talk about the age of RPGs; the oldest is
actually
M.A.R. Barker's "Empire of the Petal Throne"; in some respects he can say
he was robbed. Someone came up with the same ideas that he did; but wound
up getting printed first (Gygax/Arnenson). Traveller and SPI's Mercenaries,
Spies,
and Private Eyes came shortly afterwards.
> >> Once upon a time when a bunch of game masters got together
> >> (which was kind of infrequent) they would discuss ideas for modules;
and
> >> techniques for adapting to the actions of PCs. Today everyone who is a
gamer
> >> is a GM (a long time ago groups were lucky to have a GM, today
everyone in a
> >> gaming group usually takes turns running thier own game).
> In my experience it was more when GMs got together they discussed the
> funny ways they had killed PCs, or how to off some annoying
> troublemaker without being too blatant about it. Even then several of
> the players took turns at GMing, but they always ran separate worlds.
Your experiences with other GMs seem to be quite differant from mine. Of
course
seeing as you appear to be a hard core "storyteller" it only makes sense
that you
would quote experiences consistant with your style of gaming.
I will tell you flat out; that if you encountered groups with multiple
GMs that
early on; your experiences are highly unusual. I came into gaming at the
very
end of a time period when GMs were so well respected that they could get
into
gaming conventions (even major ones) without having to pay the entrance
fee;
even if they were not running a game. Nowadays GMs are so plentiful (and
GMing
has been redefined through "storytelling" so that anyone can do it) that
GMs
usually only get a discount when going to cons; and usually only then if
they
are running an officially sanctioned game.
> >Well, one thing about D&D/AD&D is that there was this idea that a GM was
a
> >priveleged soul who was the only one entitled to read the secret
> >handbook. If you as a player read this book, you risked being
"spoiled."
> >I'm glad that to a large extent this has been de-emphasised. I think
> >playing and GMing are intimately interelated, and that you are
essentially
> >talking about a time when there was a false economy of GM "scarcity."
>
> With the original D&D stuff there were no DM only books, but certainly
> by the time AD&D started at least 3 or 4 people in our regular group
> had worlds of their own, so everyone knew all the rules.
>
> One of the good things about the original D&D stuff is that there were
> so few rules so that nobody really worried about how much anybody else
> knew.
> >No. It's no fun spending hours in planning beforehand, if your players
> >come along and do something that bypasses half of your work. How you
> >should react in such a situation is a matter of judgement. Usually, you
> >should act cooly, but think about whether you can introduce some of the
> >material at a later time in the game, or at another session.
> I agree with Jasaon here. It's no fun at all spending a fair amount of
> time and effort in planning unexpected surprises for the party, only
> to have them totally ignore it. Forcing the group along the path you
> want them to take isn't the answer either, and sometimes you do just
> end up having wasted time and effort in design, but often things can
> be altered so that the party still gets the challenge of whatever has
> been prepared, without feeling that they're being led by a nose-ring.
There is no point to the game if the GM causes you to hit his "extra
fiendish trap" just because the plot says so. The fun of an RPG is that
anything can happen. A good GM will have everything defined beforehand; and
the PCs will be able to do whatever they want. In a real RPG sometimes the
PCs will throw a major curve ball; and manage to succeed in the most
dangerous (and unlikely) of situations. By the same token the PCs will
sometimes give themselves major headaches by overcomplicating things for
themselves. For a game to be a real RPG; the PCs
need REAL freedom/free will... not simulated free will where the PCs are to
be
tricked into thinking they are not being led around by a nose ring; but
they actually
are.
IMHO there is no such thing as totally "wasted" time in the design of a
game.
The chance of getting past that deadly trap/encounter/situation totally
unscathed
is what makes the game so much fun. When a PC manages to avoid something
truely unusual and deadly (despite all odds; and sometimes by dumb luck) it
is
one of those things that the player truely enjoys. It's the stuff those
stories
reiterated proudly to other gamers outside of the original group is made
of.
As a note; I do not advocate tolerating players who wander around trying
to
destroy a game/storyline just because they can. The big condition on all of
the
above is that it happens legitimatly in the game. If a player (or a group
of players)
constantly does inane things simply so they can have fun destroying the
GM's
game and watching it degenetate into chaos; then I feel that the GM should
walk
away from the group and refuse to GM for those players.The big factor here
is
the intent of the players.
Incidently; forcing a group of PCs to hit a trap or other malevolent
event despite
their actions; intent; and common sense is referred to as "the bolt out of
the
blue" syndrome. It's right up there with GMs who come up with stupid and
unavoidable ways to remove prized possesions from PCs. A good GM knows
when to say when. If PCs get so rich/powerful where this technique "needs"
to be employed it's time to wrap up the campaign; not humble the PCs.
I feel that if a GM is going to purposely guide the PCs into a nasty trap
(well
actually force them into it) they might as just go all out and use "Mind
Maggots".
> In Jeremy's original post he discussed (IIRC) the difference between
> having the party fight the bad-guys and lose, then escape from prison
> and have a final climactic battle (with the GM fudging things to bring
> this about) on the one hand, and (if they make the correct choices and
> are good enough) completing the adventure the easy way without getting
> into trouble.
Well you see; what I am saying is that an RPG adventure is not a matter
of choices .a good adventure is basically a giant framework of elements and
events. The PCs can do anything that they damn well please; not just make a
choice between doing "A, B, or C" in a good GM will probably have thought
of the LIKELY choices that the party might make at a given point; but will
always have to be ready for the PCs to choose option "D" (which means the
GM has to go into his framework and improvise what is going to happen based
on what he knows is going on).
The point of my previous example was not that the PCs might do things
the
"easy" way; but that rather than being scripted the PCs could do anything
within the plot given what was going on.
With the scenario I previously described; maybe the PCs won't bother to
save
the princess at all. Maybe the characters will kill the duke, and use
shapechanging
to take his place; and then pretend to bring the princess back so they can
meet
the prince again; kill him (and replace him), sell the princess to foreign
slave
traders; loot the treasurys of both the Princedom and the Duchy; and go
riding
off to spend their loot; leaving chaos, bankrupcy, and confusion in their
wakes. The
point is that the PCs can wind up doing anything! :)
> Neither of these is a bad way of playing, and both are probably used
> in most campaigns that I know of.
At any point that the free will of the PCs in a given scenario is done
away with;
the game ceases to be an RPG. It becomes a "storytelling" game. I am not
saying that a real RPG does not involve an overall plot/storyline; merely
that
what is going to happen within the plot is not set beforehand.
> But if the party is getting things
> easy all the time the players start to get bored and feel that the
> game isn't much of a challenge. Sometimes fudging the occasional
> result to that the big climactic battle comes about is a good thing.
> The players will often have a greater sense of accomplishment if they
> have overcome great adversity to complete their goal.
I discourage fudging dice or results. I for one tend to feel a great
sense of
annoyance when a battle or event that should be simple due to clever
actions
on the part of the PCs is made complicated 'just because'. The fact is that
if a situation is easy because the events are not balanced to the
characters;
this is boring. However if a situation is easy because the characters are
smart; or do something unexpected; then it is NOT something that is going
to bore the players.
Have you ever read "The Crystal Shard"? It's one of those Drizzt
Do'Urden books
that RA Salvatore wrote. All criticisms of the book aside; there is one
scene that
pretty much summerizes the point that I am trying to make. In the final
battle
Drizzt (who is a supporting character in this story; Wulfgar is more or
less
the Hero) confronts a powerful wizard who has a bona fide artifact. What
should
be an intense; gut churning battle is kind of avoided when Drizzt cleverly
pulls
out a bag of flour; disables the wizard's source of power; and saves all of
Icewind Dale pretty much unscathed. In a REAL role-playing game; run like
I encourage; this kind of thing could happen; and it would be satisfying to
all involved if it happens legitimatly. However in a Storytelling game;
the GM
would fudge things to make sure it was a gut churning climatic battle
(because
the script says so); which kind of defeats the purpose of developing clever
gimmicks
for dealing with problems.
Let's be honest here; the whole storytelling style of gaming occured
because
most GMs tend to get very insecure when running a game. No REAL game is
going to go down in a nice, organized, clean cut fashion like one of the
examples of people playing in the RPG books. In real life when a GM sits
down (especially with a new group) he is going to be nervous; maybe even
stuttering; and making a few basic mistakes (or forgetting things). The
truth
is when everyone's attention is on YOU; you tend to notice little things
that
you do and become more conscious of them than you normally would be. Some
people deal with this kind of thing (being the center of attention) better
than
others. Furthermore players are usually not going to sit there in silence
and
patiently await their turns; they talk; chatter; make innane talk about the
game (kidding around; while waiting to make their real, serious in game
actions)
and other things. All told most GMs constantly worry about whether or not
a scenario is too easy (or too hard) and what their players actually think
of
the game (are they having fun; Bob just started playing magic with Chris
and
seems to be only half listening while Joe role-plays...... Oh no!). this
leads
to the GM fudging things to make things "harder" especially if the PCs seem
to be winning hands down. Peer pressure and modern faddism against high
powered games tend to contribute to the whole thing too. Whether they admit
it or not; 90% of all GMs are afraid that other GMs will brand them as
munchkins
if their PCs seem to suceed at doing things too easily.
All told; players are going to be pretty damn happy if they manage to
succeed
due to their characters own (unscripted) actions and desicians. No one
really
gives a damn if getting past "the infamous trap of doom" was really easy;
providing
they did it legitimatly and not because the trap really sucked. In fact if
the trap
was REALLY nasty the PCs will probably be proud of the accomplishment and
feel it was one of their more heroic moments. The same is true of
situations where
the PCs easily win a tough fight due to good roles, or excellent tactic
(yeah
that Death Knight thought he was tough; but we showed him....). The only
time
the PCs are going to be really bored; or irritated is if the scenario is
inherantly
unbalanced. If your game involved pitting the 1HD orc hordes of Bogwash
Creek
against a party of 10th level heros (complete with henchmen, magic
treasure,
and maybe even their own small kingdom) and that was why it was easy; it
only
stands to reason that your game is going to bore them. If this same party
fought
demons, a flight of dragons, or the dark lords of a neighboring country;
they would
not be bored; or laugh at the game; even if they managed to succeed easily.
To try and hammer in the point further; a 10th level fighter killing
kobolds with a
+6 sword is boring; and a bit silly (especially if it's the climax of a
whole adventure).
The same character managing to beat a demon that he should not be able to
beat (such as a Balor or something similar) with a few good rolls; or a
good
trick, is not boring; OR funny... it's cool. That's the kind of heroic
stuff that
characters do in books and legends all the time.
As long as the players make their own choices; and the adventure comes to
some kind of conclusion; everyone will wind up having fun.
>>>----Therumancer--->
an ANU student
In article <01bc65e8$370936a0$0c2674cf@cts10521>, "Jeremy Richard"
<Theru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I do not believe that the GM has the right to change the rules in
> mid-game without player approval (and usually a full approval of all
> players). Nothing sucks more than getting a PC screwed because a GM
> spontaneously changes the rules when your character does something
> inconveinent for the plot.
and:
> I discourage fudging dice or results. I for one tend to feel a great
> sense of annoyance when a battle or event that should be simple due to
> clever actions on the part of the PCs is made complicated 'just because'.
Ahh... you're a "simulationist"! A "simulationist" myself, I think half
the fun in roleplay is the unpredictability of random results. I've never
tried diceless roleplaying, but I suspect what the diceless RPG people
aren't telling you is that it is enormously exciting when the players have
to adapt to a completely unexpected result.
> > I agree with Jasaon here. It's no fun at all spending a fair amount of
> > time and effort in planning unexpected surprises for the party, only
> > to have them totally ignore it.
> There is no point to the game if the GM causes you to hit his "extra
> fiendish trap" just because the plot says so.
Let me revise that -- STRICT simulationist! Personally, while I think
that players are perfectly entitled to walk past a fiendish trap, I as a
GM am perfectly entitled to reintroduce it some place else. It's not a
matter of "Walk into the trap -- you don't have a choice", it's a matter
of maximising storytelling.
I mean, the whole point of a fiendish trap is to provide a challenge for
the players to overcome! Fiendish traps with no way out are no fun, of
course, but no responsible GM is going to put his players in a situation
where they can get killed by a fiendish trap without some kind of way out
or warning.
> If a player (or a group of players) constantly does inane things simply
> so they can have fun destroying the GM's game and watching it degenetate
> into chaos; then I feel that the GM should walk away from the group and
> refuse to GM for those players.
"Your character wouldn't do that" works fine for me. I've say that a fair
number of times, especially when a player wants to do something
incompatible with his alignment.
Grant Chapman
>> What destroyed the hobby was that not everyone could be a game
master.
>> It takes a LOT of skill to create a good adventure with a good plot,
>Wouldn't argue with the second point, not so sure about the first.
>
>Over the last few years of being involved with convention roleplaying I
>have a few, hopefully relevant, observations.
>
>1. Just because you wrote the module, does not mean you are the person
>who can present it in it's best possible light.
I fully agree! - I like writing but dislike GMing. One of the reasons why I
like writing problem solving modules is that it is fact driven and not
character driven. Sure you can have colourful characters but generally
speaking the module is about solving the mystery or finding the solution to
the puzzle. when I write I envisiage what I would like to play, not always
what is considered popular, although our games seem to be more popular of
late because they are problem solving ( I guess people like the occasional
change of pace. )
When we run a game, I generally try to give the more experienced teams to
my other GM's. I take the newer or younger teams, because often I can help
them through the module and am not too overbearing as a GM. - I guess this
is one of the times when "known" teams who ask for the designer can really
fall-flat on there face.
I would be much happier if I never had to GM my games at all, and a few
proxies took on the job. One the flip side I like writing for people.. Work
that one out...
>2. Just because you have never GM'ed before doesn't mean you can't.
>There are many people out there who know the rules and have been GMing for
years, >but still just don;t quite hold it together. I have seen this in
both campaign and
>tournament GMing.
Gulp! - Yep... Umm... that's my sterotype...
Oh Well!
>People should be encouraged to try, if they wish to, not told to get
>back in their box. Greed probably has been the major downfall in the
>hobby in recent years, with Gaming Companies releasing more and more, at
>higher and higher prices. But no one forced us to buy them. If no one
>bought them, they would either find another way of publishing if they
>really need to share their work with us. Or they would drop the price.
>Or if they only wanted to make money, they would try to sucker someone
>else.
One thing I have noticed is that a lot of teams are very harsh about the
GM's performance. I have played in well over a hundred con games. ( a lot
of you have too when you work it out! ) and there have been games that the
GM didn't have a clue aout the game and the module was only two pages long.
Despite this I still enjoyed myself...
>:) Roleplaying is fun, let's not lose sight of that.
Amen to that sister!
Grant Chapman
Jason Stokes
In article <01bc65e8$370936a0$0c2674cf@cts10521>, "Jeremy Richard"
<Theru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I do not believe that the GM has the right to change the rules in
> mid-game without player approval (and usually a full approval of all
> players). Nothing sucks more than getting a PC screwed because a GM
> spontaneously changes the rules when your character does something
> inconveinent for the plot.
and:
> I discourage fudging dice or results. I for one tend to feel a great
> sense of annoyance when a battle or event that should be simple due to
> clever actions on the part of the PCs is made complicated 'just because'.
Ahh... you're a "simulationist!" A "simulationist" myself, I think half
the fun in roleplay is the unpredictability of random results. I've never
tried diceless roleplaying, but I suspect what the diceless RPG people
aren't telling you is that it is enormously exciting when the players have
to adapt to a completely unexpected result.
> > I agree with Jasaon here. It's no fun at all spending a fair amount of
> > time and effort in planning unexpected surprises for the party, only
> > to have them totally ignore it.
> There is no point to the game if the GM causes you to hit his "extra
> fiendish trap" just because the plot says so.
Let me revise that -- STRICT simulationist! Personally, while I think
that players are perfectly entitled to walk past a fiendish trap, I as a
GM am perfectly entitled to reintroduce it some place else. It's not a
matter of "Walk into the trap -- you don't have a choice", it's a matter
of maximising storytelling.
I mean, the whole point of a fiendish trap is to provide a challenge for
the players to overcome! Fiendish traps with no way out are no fun, of
course, but no responsible GM is going to put his players in a situation
where they can get killed by a fiendish trap without some kind of way out
or warning. it's not a contest.
> If a player (or a group of players) constantly does inane things simply
> so they can have fun destroying the GM's game and watching it degenetate
> into chaos; then I feel that the GM should walk away from the group and
> refuse to GM for those players.
"Your character wouldn't do that" works fine for me. I've say that a fair
number of times, especially when a player wants to do something
incompatible with his alignment or his goals. I've never had a player
insist on being disruptive, but sometimes players can do things out of
character or do inane things anyway. That's a good thing -- the players
aren't meant to do what's expected of them -- but the GM has got to set
limits. I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but if a
player wants to make gunpowder with the alchemist's ingredients on a
pre-gunpowder world, the GM is perfectly entitled to say "you don't know
how to do that" or perhaps more creatively "you mix the powders, and try a
test ignition, but nothing happens. I guess the local physics don't allow
gunpowder in this world." You can think of that as "taking away the
player's free will", and to a certain extent that's true, but it's
*creatively* taking away their free will, and any adventure needs to have
limits.
Last thing -- I think your point about "storytelling" is valid, and the
progression of modules towards forcing players to conform to a certain
plot is notable. "Character immunity" is one phenomenon I find
particularly distasteful. It's valid to ask: "What are the dice there
for?" in such a situation. What you've missed is that this trend has
progressed to the extent that gamers have said: "Well let's get rid of the
dice!" Roleplaying then becomes "diceless", "freeform" or "live action."
There are serious differences between dicey and non-dicey roleplaying. If
you feel the need to enforce a fixed plot, with character immunity for
most of the game, concentrating on "character interaction" then you
needn't bother with dice. If you can cope with randomness, take character
death in your stride, and are pretty happy with a much looser plot, use
dice. But don't expect dicey role playing to work like a novel, and don't
expect diceless roleplaying to work exactly like a game.
--
Jason Stokes: j%stokes <at> bohm%anu%edu%au
(exchange <at> with @ and % with .)
I apologise for the convoluted spam block.
Jeremy Richard
Jason Stokes <j.st...@OUT-DAMNED-SPAM.bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in article
<5lqfno$3if$2...@clarion.carno.net.au>...
> On Mon, 19 May 1997 14:47:15 GMT, tc <t...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> >[..]
>
> Never mind that, the post I made yesterday has been lost from my server!
> Has there been a cancelbunny let loose on aus.games.roleplay? Does it
still
> exist on other sites? How annoying!
I saw something quoted from your message; so I assume it at least got
out.
I don't know why someone would delete your message; even if I don't exactly
agree with you. :)
> Why would anyone want to cancel a post as innocent as mine (and about 20
> others!)
To be annoying?
>>>----Therumancer--->
Jeremy Richard
Hmmm; I wrote the last message before getting this one. I guess we
agree
more than I thought from the quoting in TCs message. :)
> > I do not believe that the GM has the right to change the rules in
> > mid-game without player approval (and usually a full approval of all
> > players). Nothing sucks more than getting a PC screwed because a GM
> > spontaneously changes the rules when your character does something
> > inconveinent for the plot.
>
> and:
>
> > I discourage fudging dice or results. I for one tend to feel a
great
> > sense of annoyance when a battle or event that should be simple due to
> > clever actions on the part of the PCs is made complicated 'just
because'.
> Ahh... you're a "simulationist!" A "simulationist" myself, I think half
> the fun in roleplay is the unpredictability of random results. I've
never
> tried diceless roleplaying, but I suspect what the diceless RPG people
> aren't telling you is that it is enormously exciting when the players
have
> to adapt to a completely unexpected result.
Not really; I just believe in free will for the players. The system
(random or
diceless) is kind of irrelevent to me; so is the NATURE of the rules (ie
the exact
system) as long as things remain consistant.
For example; redefining someone's spell percentages/chance of success
in
a random (dice using) RPG is no better or worse than redefining someone's
spell
in a diceless RPG. Whether a DM spontaneously adds a "to hit" roll to a
"Magic
Missle spell" in AD&D, or re-defines what the capabilities of Logrus
Mastery are
in an Amber game; I would hate it just as much.
Irregardless of how things work; the rules for the game need to be
settled before the game begins. The GM is NOT (in my opinion) entitled to
chang rules in mid-game without COMPLETE player approval.
Even diceless games have rules; and their own consistant logic. In
Amber for
example; everything is determined by powerlevel, stats, and whatever
abillities
the character actually has.
> > > I agree with Jasaon here. It's no fun at all spending a fair amount
of
> > > time and effort in planning unexpected surprises for the party, only
> > > to have them totally ignore it.
> > There is no point to the game if the GM causes you to hit his
"extra
> > fiendish trap" just because the plot says so.
>
> Let me revise that -- STRICT simulationist! Personally, while I think
> that players are perfectly entitled to walk past a fiendish trap, I as a
> GM am perfectly entitled to reintroduce it some place else. It's not a
> matter of "Walk into the trap -- you don't have a choice", it's a matter
> of maximising storytelling.
IMHO this still defeats the whole purpose of the game. The idea is not
to maximize storytelling; but to keep the plot entertaining, and maximize
free will
on the part of the players. If the PCs evade a trap it shouldn't keep
appearing one
step ahead of them until they finally spring it.
> I mean, the whole point of a fiendish trap is to provide a challenge for
> the players to overcome! Fiendish traps with no way out are no fun, of
> course, but no responsible GM is going to put his players in a situation
> where they can get killed by a fiendish trap without some kind of way out
> or warning. it's not a contest.
Yes; but when an obstacle is beaten; it is beaten. Some obstacles are
going to
be harder than others. Sure; the PCs might beat a really dangerous
situation
easily; but that is half the fun of the game. It really sucks when the GM
beats
on your characters relentlessly just because you did something right (or
well).
To tell you the truth; 99% of the stories people tell about the heroism
of their
characters; have to do with overwhelmingly dangerous/deadly situations that
they
managed to avoid due to their ingenuity (or even just dumb luck). The PCs
are not
going to be disapointed (or feel shortchanged) if they bypass the "extra
fiendish
trap" legitimatly. Forcing the PCs to eventually hit the trap (re-using it
if nessicary;
until they hit it) totally cannonballs any sense of satisfaction that might
have come
from avoiding the trap.
> > If a player (or a group of players) constantly does inane things simply
> > so they can have fun destroying the GM's game and watching it
degenetate
> > into chaos; then I feel that the GM should walk away from the group and
> > refuse to GM for those players.
>
> "Your character wouldn't do that" works fine for me. I've say that a
fair
> number of times, especially when a player wants to do something
> incompatible with his alignment or his goals. I've never had a player
> insist on being disruptive, but sometimes players can do things out of
> character or do inane things anyway.
When I discuss GMing styles I here regular tales of players who enjoy
messing
with a GMs campaign world; just for the hell of it. They like to
consciously put
their minds (as players) towards doing the most off the wall, and
disruptive things
possible; just to drive the GM up the wall. Such players are the kind who
like to
look for weak, major NPCs; simply so they can kill them and see what the GM
will do; or mess with the structure of an adventure; simply to see the GM
freak
when his plotline falls apart without any rhyme or reason. (huh? well let's
see what
happens when we sell the key to the dungeon where the world-destroying
artifact
is kept to this cobbler... when the world blows up we'll roast
MARSHMELLOWS!!!)
> That's a good thing -- the players
> aren't meant to do what's expected of them -- but the GM has got to set
> limits. I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but if a
> player wants to make gunpowder with the alchemist's ingredients on a
> pre-gunpowder world, the GM is perfectly entitled to say "you don't know
> how to do that" or perhaps more creatively "you mix the powders, and try
a
> test ignition, but nothing happens. I guess the local physics don't
allow
> gunpowder in this world." You can think of that as "taking away the
> player's free will", and to a certain extent that's true, but it's
This is exactly what I mean about a PC trying to mess with a
scenario/world
for the sheer hell of it. The type of players I deal with; by simply
refusing to GM
for them.
However; everything is relative. In your above example if the PC in
question
happened to be an alchemist; I might let him invent guns (or fireworks). In
all
honesty most fantasy worlds exist in a time period where such weapons
should
logically exist; and neither are more powerful than most spells. Keep in
mind
that fireworks existed (and were used on the battlefield) before Full Plate
Armor
was invented.
If someone did this; my big point of consideration would be whether or
not
the PC would be someone who might "accidently" figure this out (a PC
alchemist
role-playing experiments might be able to do so). I would also consider
whether
the PC is doing this to be disruptive; and if not; how realistically I
think the PC
would handle the situation. If a player expressed the desire to have his PC
alchemist
create gunpowder; I would probably handle this like the research needed for
any
other alchemal concoction. Then I would make him research delivery devices
seperatly; and assign realistic times to the research.
To continue with the above example; it might be cool to have the
character who
invented the matchlock as a PC. However it is doubtful that such a weapon
would
ever catch on in most fantasy worlds. Remember in fantasy games alchemy is
a magical science. Most alchemists would do far better to simply make
exploding
powder; or powder of corrosion (which exist in most supplements I have seen
for
alchemy). If I was a warlord I'd rather have a bunch of bags of "instant
fireball" to
use with a sling; than a super-expensive gun that fires a rock half the
range of
a longbow, with no accuracy, and a loud noise letting everyone know exactly
where
you are. All the research into guns happened in real life; mainly because
we cannot
create a safe to handle powder that explodes on contact with an enemy (or
selectively eats through the body of an enemy; yet does not corrode the
body of
it's creator/owner).
A good example of this point is what Cadderly does in "The Cleric
Quintet" by
RA Salvatore. He kind of invents the gun; by putting mini-flasks of "oil of
impact"
on the end of handcrossbow bolts. Something we could not do today; but
works
in a fantasy world; and winds up being more effective than most modern
grenade
launchers on the field.
> *creatively* taking away their free will, and any adventure needs to have
> limits.
Well back to the point.
I personally feel that removing free will from the characters is a bad
thing; no
matter how creatively it is done. It is better to creatively deal with a
situation
in the game. As you said above; you can always say "your character wouldn't
do that" in a ridiculous (if not intentionally disruptive) situation. In a
situation
where a character WOULD do something potentially disruptive... say an
alchemist
inventing gunpowder using whatever research rules your alchemy system
involves
( as opposed to "Hey dude; Brutal Bruno <the barbarian> wants to experiment
with
some stuff he walks into this shop and mixes charcoal, saltpeter, and
sulpher; and
then accidently drops a candle on it; what happens?") it is better to
creatively
deal with the situation; than to remove the PC's free will.
> Last thing -- I think your point about "storytelling" is valid, and the
> progression of modules towards forcing players to conform to a certain
> plot is notable. "Character immunity" is one phenomenon I find
> particularly distasteful. It's valid to ask: "What are the dice there
> for?" in such a situation. What you've missed is that this trend has
> progressed to the extent that gamers have said: "Well let's get rid of
the
> dice!" Roleplaying then becomes "diceless", "freeform" or "live action."
I tend to like dice as long as they are not overused. In general I tend
only to
use dice when something is a contest of a character's abillities (unlike
some GMs
I do not make PCs make piloting / riding rolls when going from point
A-to-Point
B along a road). Basically if a normal person with the PCs skills could
logically
do something; they can do it (no rolls); it's only when they get fancy that
it
becomes a matter of using the dice.
This is irrelevent however; dice vs. diceless has nothing to do with
free will; all
it has to do is with random skill resolution. Redefining a rule/power in
one kind of
game; is just as annoying as in the other. I can screw with an Amberite's
character
by changing the definition of how the Pattern (or any other power) works;
just as
much as I can mess with an AD&D character's free will by messing with how
(and why) the dice are rolled.
> There are serious differences between dicey and non-dicey roleplaying.
If
> you feel the need to enforce a fixed plot, with character immunity for
> most of the game, concentrating on "character interaction" then you
> needn't bother with dice. If you can cope with randomness, take
character
> death in your stride, and are pretty happy with a much looser plot, use
> dice. But don't expect dicey role playing to work like a novel, and
don't
> expect diceless roleplaying to work exactly like a game.
Diceless games do not lend themselves to storytelling any more than dice
using ones do. It's a matter of the people playing the game; than the game
itself.
The whole point of an RPG is NOT to tell a story like a novel; but to
take
part in a scenario that (after it is all over, and resolved) will tell a
story of
sorts. In a Storytelling game the GM decides what will happen, in an RPG
the PCs determine what will happen with their own actions.
>>>----Therumancer--->
Sara Hanson
Jason Stokes wrote:
>
> Last thing -- I think your point about "storytelling" is valid, and the
> progression of modules towards forcing players to conform to a certain
> plot is notable. "Character immunity" is one phenomenon I find
> particularly distasteful. It's valid to ask: "What are the dice there
> for?" in such a situation. What you've missed is that this trend has
> progressed to the extent that gamers have said: "Well let's get rid of the
> dice!" Roleplaying then becomes "diceless", "freeform" or "live action."
>
> you feel the need to enforce a fixed plot, with character immunity for
> most of the game, concentrating on "character interaction" then you
> needn't bother with dice. If you can cope with randomness, take character
> death in your stride, and are pretty happy with a much looser plot, use
> dice. But don't expect dicey role playing to work like a novel, and don't
> expect diceless roleplaying to work exactly like a game.
One of the reason's why freeforming works as a 'diceless' system is that
often the players only exist in the game universe for a few hours. This
severley limits their ability to do anything totally catastophic and
unexpected that will affect the rest of the game universe [at least
during the particular period your interested in].
Campaing gaming involves characters over weeks, months, years, and in
some cases, centuries. Random events will hive a much greater effect on
these characters, be it a missed swing with a sword, a heart attack, a
bus [what bus? splat!]. It is much harder for the GM to avert fate over
an exended period of time rather than only a few hours.
Dice gives the GM the ability to show his players that he is NOT ganging
up on them, or making it too easy. Chance, just as in real life, will
shape the characters world, almost as much as their deliberate actions.
Richard Canning
Sara Hanson <eli...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>One of the reason's why freeforming works as a 'diceless' system is that
>often the players only exist in the game universe for a few hours. This
>severley limits their ability to do anything totally catastophic and
>unexpected that will affect the rest of the game universe [at least
>during the particular period your interested in].
>Campaing gaming involves characters over weeks, months, years, and in
>some cases, centuries. Random events will hive a much greater effect on
>these characters, be it a missed swing with a sword, a heart attack, a
>bus [what bus? splat!]. It is much harder for the GM to avert fate over
>an exended period of time rather than only a few hours.
>Dice gives the GM the ability to show his players that he is NOT ganging
>up on them, or making it too easy. Chance, just as in real life, will
>shape the characters world, almost as much as their deliberate actions.
I have been running a campaign for years now, and Sara is a player in it. It,
as well as many of my other games, have developed because of the Dice, and much
as in spite of them. There are certain things I will not let happen no matter
what the dice say, but there are others where the dice have done a better job of
improving the scenario that I could of without them.
As a GM and designer I do not want to know everything that happens, and if the
dice throw me a curve ball occasionally, and I am willing to let them, then
often the entire group can be giving other avenues that we wouldn't have had
otherwise. An inportant NPC dying is a good example. I have killed off a few
importand NPCs because of the dice, and even recently a necessary PC (hi
Natalia), and each time I have been able to turn it into an experience that has
worked better than my original intentions. Either having to find replacement
allies or dealing with a dead character can be better than the sessions I had
planned in advance.
Do not let the dice run the game, but if the GM lets then have some control over
him, then fate can dictate much that would have remained hidden.
Phooey to diceless campaigns.
Freeforms and Tournament Games are a different story. As Sara said, the time
limitation is enough to make it workable if wanted.
Happy gaming
Richard Canning
XXV
Jason Stokes
In article <3383C1...@netspace.net.au>, Sarah Hanson
<eli...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Jason Stokes wrote:
> >
> > Last thing -- I think your point about "storytelling" is valid, and the
> > progression of modules towards forcing players to conform to a certain
> > plot is notable. "Character immunity" is one phenomenon I find
> > particularly distasteful. It's valid to ask: "What are the dice there
> > for?" in such a situation. What you've missed is that this trend has
> > progressed to the extent that gamers have said: "Well let's get rid of the
> > dice!" Roleplaying then becomes "diceless", "freeform" or "live action."
> [..]
> One of the reason's why freeforming works as a 'diceless' system is that
> often the players only exist in the game universe for a few hours. This
> severley limits their ability to do anything totally catastophic and
> unexpected that will affect the rest of the game universe [at least
> during the particular period your interested in].
Well, I think freeforming works well as a 'diceless' system because they
rarely involve anything involving combat where the players disagree with
each other (I can TOO beat you to a pulp! I'm *much* tougher than you!).
Or at least the two freeforms I've been involved in didn't involve any
"system" (They were a long time ago -- I don't much care for freeforming.)
It seems (because I'm not very familiar with "diceless" campaigns) that
the various "diceless" campaigns work well where conspiracy, intrigue and
complex shifts in loyalty are a large part of the background. Ever played
"Diplomacy?" A game in which there is no dice at all -- conquests follow
a simple set of rules, and a large part of the game is not played out on
the board, but in the various negotiations and shifting alliances the
various parties make. Amber works well as a diceless game. On the other
hand, if you enjoy something like "Ogre" or "Car Wars" where the aim is
just to pit tanks and battlecars against each other, diceless roleplaying
is silly. "Let's negotiate the result of this machine-gun burst with the
Arcadian masters over there."
Mark Apolinski
Sara Hanson wrote:
>
> One of the reason's why freeforming works as a 'diceless' system is that
> often the players only exist in the game universe for a few hours. This
> severley limits their ability to do anything totally catastophic and
> unexpected that will affect the rest of the game universe [at least
> during the particular period your interested in].
>
> some cases, centuries. Random events will hive a much greater effect on
> these characters, be it a missed swing with a sword, a heart attack, a
> bus [what bus? splat!]. It is much harder for the GM to avert fate over
> an exended period of time rather than only a few hours.
>
> Dice gives the GM the ability to show his players that he is NOT ganging
> up on them, or making it too easy. Chance, just as in real life, will
You're saying that diceless campaigns are rare? On what basis?
Personally,
I've never seen a non-campaign diceless game outside of conventions. I
only
play campaigns and I almost always play diceless.
I think you're mistaken. But that's must MHO.
Mark
tc
"Jeremy Richard" <Theru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<big snip>
> I do not believe that the GM has the right to change the rules in
>mid-game without player approval (and usually a full approval of all players).
>Nothing sucks more than getting a PC screwed because a GM
>spontaneously changes the rules when your character does something
>inconveinent for the plot. All told if your mage casts a spell that works in
>X fashion; and the GM changes it to Y fashion AFTER he casts it; and
>the mage incidently dies as a result of this change; that is poor GMing.
>It is also poor GMing to let a PC work themself into a situation where they
>are relying on a specific power; and then changing how that power works
>in the midst of the situation; and letting the PC get screwed because of
>it (ie "Yeah well; I woudln't have ever started that fight
>with the medusa if gaze reflection had a 40% chance of failure").
I agree with you here, but I don't recall anyone advocating that level
of fudging in prior posts in this thread.
<another snip of my discussion of old-time role-playing>
> Errrr; my understanding of the origins of role-playing are a bit differant from
>yours. A couple years ago TSR ran an article on the history of role-playing
>in Dragon; that combined with my own sources has formed this following
>picture:
> Role-playing was an exercise in mindless dungeon bashing (like you describe)
>in the beginning because of the "Castle Blackmoor" game. You see many game
>writers in the beginning had a lot of good ideas; but little in the way of writing
>skills. Role-playing started when wargamers started running very small scale
>battles using midevil wargame rules; and setting up plots for conflicts based off
>of various popular fantasy novels. A guy named David Arnenson made a game
>called "Castle Blackmoor" which was a wargame with rules specifically for
>this style of wargaming. The rules were fairly flexible and the people started
>creating their own storylines for the battles taking place in the castle that was
>the setting for this game. Eventually David Arnenson got together with a guy
>named Gary Gygax and the two of them created a game called "Dungeons and
>Dragons" which was the first true role-playing game. However their writing skills
>(combined with preconceived notions about this kind of game), and David
>Arnenson's previous work led to people viewing "Dungeons and Dragons" as
>a variation of "Castle Blackmoor" where you could run battles anywhere; not
>just within the castle. In fact I have in the past read some very old college wargaming
>newsines (well handouts actually) that define "Dungeons and Dragons" this way
>and suggest ways of merging it with the mechanics from "Castle Blackmoor" to
>make it more playable (it's kind of funny nowadays to see how far everyone
>missed the point).
That's more or less correct, except the game you refer to as "Castle
Blackmoor" was actually called "Chainmail" and was a set of rules for
war-gaming using fantasy creatures and magic. Castle Blackmoor was the
setting for Dave Arneson's original D&D campaign. Blackmoor was also
the name of the 2nd supplement to the original D&D rules (the first
being Greyhawk) and it contained an adventure called Temple of the
Frog. It also contained the Assassin and Monk character classes.
> Eventually when the first campaign setting (Blackmoor) and adventures came
>out people figured out what the hell what the game was supposed to be. Many
>embraced it; many quickly abandoned it. For a while RPGers were on the rim
>of the wargaming community (RPGs were regarded very similarly to how collectable
>card games were regarded a few years ago). Thos who did game; tromped around
>dungeons killing things and collecting treasure; because wargaming was a
>reflex; and many had visions of Castle Blackmoor still dancing through their
>heads (especially given the Blackmoor setting).
The first published module from TSR was S1 - The Tomb of Horrors, and
it was an AD&D module. Interestingly enough (in my part of Australia
anyway) it was available well before the Players Handbook, although
the Monster Manual had come out (1977). Judge's Guild were publishing
modules before then, but other than that it was pretty much whatever
the DM came up with - there were some in fanzines, but they weren't
much seen in Australia.
> Greyhawk; and it's original modules were the things that did the most for
>turning RPGs into their current form. It was the second and third generation
>Greyhawk modules (those that were actually printed; rather than appearing
>in amateur wargaming newsines) and the old Judge's Guild stuff that truely
>captured the essence of gaming.
The Greyhawk world setting didn't come out until well after this
period, and the early modules (S1 and B1 - The Keep on the
Borderlands) were no differenty from what most DMs were producing.
They were just dungeons to adventure in, with monsters and traps and
puzzles.
> Old modules are far superior to new ones (which is one of the reasons why
>people still buy them; and search for them) because they presented intresting
>plots; and a well written framework. New modules do not even come close to
>allowing for the level of free will and player initiative that works of art like "Temple
>of Elemental Evil", "Against the Giants", and "Against the Giants" captured. Most
>adventures today force the PCs along a certain path; and the same things happen
>irregardless of what the PCs do (unless the PCs die; which ends the module). The
>"Grim Harvest" series for Ravenloft is a good example of what sucks in modern
>adventure modules.
I can't agree with this at all. The G series and D series of modules
that followed it gave the players NO free will in the sense you're
talking about. The party went in, killed the giants and went on to the
next module - end of story. There is no allowance for any other course
of action, like what if the party joins the giants, or get the giants
to join them - all this would have had to be winged by the DM. Current
modules are much better in that they provide a lot more background
information.
I don't think TSR have ever produced really good modules, not compared
with the stuff that Chaosium produce for CoC, although a lot of the
Forgotten Realms stuff is not bad. The more background information
that is provided for the GM, the easier it is for them to react
appropriately when the party does something unexpected. The more
information the GM has, the more likely they are to go with the flow
when the party doesn't do what's expected. Forcing the party to follow
a certain path comes when the DM has no options at hand.
> Fun Fact: Blackmoor still exists today (kind of). Many people think it is dead.
>The Mystara / D&D known world setting is Blackmoor. It is just far in the future
>of the ORIGINAL Blackmoor world; so much is supposed to have changed. The
>old D&D modules (Adventures in Blackmoor, Temple of the Frog, City of the Gods,
>and The Duchy of Ten) make this point rather clear.
Castle Blackmoor, and the Duchy of Tehn are actually areas in the
World of Greyhawk boxed set.
> Traveller in general was only cool because it was one of the first science
>fiction games; also when it first started it had better writers (proportionatly)
No, the really good thing about Traveller was that it was the first
RPG that wasn't level based. This meant that there needed to be more
point to adventures than just going to gain experience points and go
up levels, and this caused a change in the ways RPGs ran.
>than TSR did. If you want to talk about the age of RPGs; the oldest is actually
>M.A.R. Barker's "Empire of the Petal Throne"; in some respects he can say
>he was robbed. Someone came up with the same ideas that he did; but wound
>up getting printed first (Gygax/Arnenson). Traveller and SPI's Mercenaries, Spies,
>and Private Eyes came shortly afterwards.
I've heard before that EPT was thought of before D&D, but I have no
way of knowing for sure. Likely Prof Barker and EGG and Dave Arneson
were separately working on stuff at pretty much the same time. TSR
published the first 3 RPGs - D&D in 1974, EPT in 1975 and
Metamorphosis Alpha in 1976. Unfortunately EPT and MA suffered from
pretty bad game mechanics and never really took off. I've always
thought this was a great pity in the case of EPT, as I've always loved
the depth and richness of Tekumel as a world.
Traveller was the first non-TSR RPG (AFAIK) in 1977, but MSPE didn't
come out until at least 5 years after Traveller, by which stage there
were dozens of RPGs about.
<more snipping>
>> In my experience it was more when GMs got together they discussed the
>> funny ways they had killed PCs, or how to off some annoying
>> troublemaker without being too blatant about it. Even then several of
>> the players took turns at GMing, but they always ran separate worlds.
>
> Your experiences with other GMs seem to be quite differant from mine. Of course
>seeing as you appear to be a hard core "storyteller" it only makes sense that you
>would quote experiences consistant with your style of gaming.
I don't think I fully understand how you define a "storyteller" style
of DM. Isn't any RPG about telling a story, one that you and the
players are creating as you go along? Its important that both the
players and the GM have input into the story, but the amoount of input
won't always be equal.
> I will tell you flat out; that if you encountered groups with multiple GMs that
>early on; your experiences are highly unusual.
I'll tell you that my experiences with groups with multiple GMs
weren't at all unusual. Try talking to people who were playing RPGs
back in the mid to late 70s.
> I came into gaming at the very
>end of a time period when GMs were so well respected that they could get into
>gaming conventions (even major ones) without having to pay the entrance fee;
>even if they were not running a game. Nowadays GMs are so plentiful (and GMing
>has been redefined through "storytelling" so that anyone can do it) that GMs
>usually only get a discount when going to cons; and usually only then if they
>are running an officially sanctioned game.
Cancon 1981 was the first con to have a D&D competition (although
Cancon in 1980 had a demo game, which was just Keith Wood's normal
dungeon that people could create new characters and play in for a
couple of hours), and from then until the late 80s I atteneded every
Cancon, Phantastacon, Arcanacon, Sydcon, and Tinnies tournament, and I
don't ever recall GMs being given free entry to a con just because
they were GMs. If you're talking about GMs who are GMing at the con
not having to pay rego fees, that's certainly true, but its still the
case now. They do have to pay for any sessions they play when they're
not GMing.
I don't recall GMs being particularly respected just because they were
GMs. Back in those days most of the regular con attendees knew each
other pretty well. This point of view comes from someone who was going
through late high school and university back then, as were most of the
people we attended cons with, so I can't speak for the feelings of
people who were much younger back then.
<more snipping>
> There is no point to the game if the GM causes you to hit his "extra
>fiendish trap" just because the plot says so. The fun of an RPG is that
>anything can happen. A good GM will have everything defined beforehand; and
>the PCs will be able to do whatever they want. In a real RPG sometimes the
>PCs will throw a major curve ball; and manage to succeed in the most
>dangerous (and unlikely) of situations. By the same token the PCs will
>sometimes give themselves major headaches by overcomplicating things for
>themselves. For a game to be a real RPG; the PCs
>need REAL freedom/free will... not simulated free will where the PCs are to be
>tricked into thinking they are not being led around by a nose ring; but
>they actually are.
What exactly do you mean by "REAL freedom/free will"?
> IMHO there is no such thing as totally "wasted" time in the design of a game.
>The chance of getting past that deadly trap/encounter/situation totally unscathed
>is what makes the game so much fun. When a PC manages to avoid something
>truely unusual and deadly (despite all odds; and sometimes by dumb luck) it is
>one of those things that the player truely enjoys. It's the stuff those stories
>reiterated proudly to other gamers outside of the original group is made of.
Often if the players avoid a trap/encounter/puzzle or whatever through
sheer dumb luck, then the chances are that they'll never know of its
existence, so its hardly the "stuff of great plyer legends".
In my experience, players are far more likely to talk about great
stuff-ups they have made that led to funny situations, than great
successes they have had.
> Incidently; forcing a group of PCs to hit a trap or other malevolent event despite
>their actions; intent; and common sense is referred to as "the bolt out of the
>blue" syndrome. It's right up there with GMs who come up with stupid and
>unavoidable ways to remove prized possesions from PCs. A good GM knows
>when to say when. If PCs get so rich/powerful where this technique "needs"
>to be employed it's time to wrap up the campaign; not humble the PCs.
There is a big difference between modifying the adventure as it
unfolds to keep interest and tension levels high, and forcing players
along a certain path by removing their ability to choose other paths.
> Well you see; what I am saying is that an RPG adventure is not a matter
>of choices .a good adventure is basically a giant framework of elements and
>events. The PCs can do anything that they damn well please; not just make a
>choice between doing "A, B, or C" in a good GM will probably have thought
>of the LIKELY choices that the party might make at a given point; but will
>always have to be ready for the PCs to choose option "D" (which means the
>GM has to go into his framework and improvise what is going to happen based
>on what he knows is going on).
> The point of my previous example was not that the PCs might do things the
>"easy" way; but that rather than being scripted the PCs could do anything
>within the plot given what was going on.
> With the scenario I previously described; maybe the PCs won't bother to save
>the princess at all. Maybe the characters will kill the duke, and use shapechanging
>to take his place; and then pretend to bring the princess back so they can meet
>the prince again; kill him (and replace him), sell the princess to foreign slave
>traders; loot the treasurys of both the Princedom and the Duchy; and go riding
>off to spend their loot; leaving chaos, bankrupcy, and confusion in their wakes. The
>point is that the PCs can wind up doing anything! :)
Quite right, there is nothing wrong with the scenario you've proposed,
but there's also nothing wrong with the GM modifying the adventure so
that whatever the players decide to do is a challenge, so that they
feel that they've had to work to gain their objectives - whatever they
may be.
> At any point that the free will of the PCs in a given scenario is done away with;
>the game ceases to be an RPG. It becomes a "storytelling" game. I am not
>saying that a real RPG does not involve an overall plot/storyline; merely that
>what is going to happen within the plot is not set beforehand.
This is absolute crap! You keep going on about player free will being
essential to an RPG and anything else being a storytelling game, but
an RPG tells a story with input from the GM and the players. You seem
to be talking about a situation where the GM forces the players down a
certain path, regardless of their actions - but that too can be an
RPG, although in a different form from that which you seem to prefer.
In most of the games that I've GMed or played in, its not unusual for
the players to come up with a course that the GM hasn't thought of,
after all its many minds vs one. In all these cases the only times
that players have been forced along a certain path is in tournament
modules, and there is some justification for it in that case.
> I discourage fudging dice or results. I for one tend to feel a great sense of
>annoyance when a battle or event that should be simple due to clever actions
>on the part of the PCs is made complicated 'just because'. The fact is that
>if a situation is easy because the events are not balanced to the characters;
>this is boring. However if a situation is easy because the characters are
>smart; or do something unexpected; then it is NOT something that is going
>to bore the players.
Fudging is not always done in the GMs favour. On some occasions I have
fudged rolls in favour of the players because a certain player was
likely to die and I didn't think that they deserved to from the way
they were playing. I'm not syaing that characters should only be
killed when they're playing stupidly, but sometimes a player may be
doing everything right, and just having really bad dice rolls, and
death isn't a fair reward.
Another reason for fudging dice rolls is to compensate for players
fudging dice rolls. A certain player in a campaign I run cheats on
dice rolls. I know its happening and the other players know its
happening, but its a social gaming session so no-one wants to take
this player to task about it, as we'd rather the atmosphere remained
friendly. I get arounf this by fudging my dice rolls in combat against
this character - it evens things out.
> Have you ever read "The Crystal Shard"? It's one of those Drizzt Do'Urden books
>that RA Salvatore wrote. All criticisms of the book aside; there is one scene that
>pretty much summerizes the point that I am trying to make. In the final battle
>Drizzt (who is a supporting character in this story; Wulfgar is more or less
>the Hero) confronts a powerful wizard who has a bona fide artifact. What should
>be an intense; gut churning battle is kind of avoided when Drizzt cleverly pulls
>out a bag of flour; disables the wizard's source of power; and saves all of
>Icewind Dale pretty much unscathed. In a REAL role-playing game; run like
>I encourage; this kind of thing could happen; and it would be satisfying to
>all involved if it happens legitimatly. However in a Storytelling game; the GM
>would fudge things to make sure it was a gut churning climatic battle (because
>the script says so); which kind of defeats the purpose of developing clever gimmicks
>for dealing with problems.
I find it somewhat ironic that you're taking an example from a novel
(a story) to make a point against storytelling in RPGs.
> Let's be honest here; the whole storytelling style of gaming occured because
>most GMs tend to get very insecure when running a game. No REAL game is
>going to go down in a nice, organized, clean cut fashion like one of the
>examples of people playing in the RPG books. In real life when a GM sits
>down (especially with a new group) he is going to be nervous; maybe even
>stuttering; and making a few basic mistakes (or forgetting things). The truth
>is when everyone's attention is on YOU; you tend to notice little things that
>you do and become more conscious of them than you normally would be. Some
>people deal with this kind of thing (being the center of attention) better than
>others. Furthermore players are usually not going to sit there in silence and
>patiently await their turns; they talk; chatter; make innane talk about the
>game (kidding around; while waiting to make their real, serious in game actions)
>and other things. All told most GMs constantly worry about whether or not
>a scenario is too easy (or too hard) and what their players actually think of
>the game (are they having fun; Bob just started playing magic with Chris and
>seems to be only half listening while Joe role-plays...... Oh no!). this leads
>to the GM fudging things to make things "harder" especially if the PCs seem
>to be winning hands down. Peer pressure and modern faddism against high
>powered games tend to contribute to the whole thing too. Whether they admit
>it or not; 90% of all GMs are afraid that other GMs will brand them as munchkins
>if their PCs seem to suceed at doing things too easily.
What you've described above seems like a pretty normal role-playing
session to me. GMs should give some thought to whether the adventures
they're designing are too hard or too easy. Too easy and the players
will get bored, too hard and the players will get discouraged because
they never have any success.
I have to say though, that I don't give a rat's what anyone outside my
gaming group thinks of the campaign, I do care what those people
playing in it think. The other GMs I know have this sort of attitude
also.
> All told; players are going to be pretty damn happy if they manage to succeed
>due to their characters own (unscripted) actions and desicians. No one really
>gives a damn if getting past "the infamous trap of doom" was really easy; providing
>they did it legitimatly and not because the trap really sucked. In fact if the trap
>was REALLY nasty the PCs will probably be proud of the accomplishment and
>feel it was one of their more heroic moments. The same is true of situations where
>the PCs easily win a tough fight due to good roles, or excellent tactic(yeah
>that Death Knight thought he was tough; but we showed him....).
My point exactly. The players are going to have a much greater sense
of accomplishment if they've succeeded in something that was pretty
tough.
> The only time
>the PCs are going to be really bored; or irritated is if the scenario is inherantly
>unbalanced. If your game involved pitting the 1HD orc hordes of Bogwash Creek
>against a party of 10th level heros (complete with henchmen, magic treasure,
>and maybe even their own small kingdom) and that was why it was easy; it only
>stands to reason that your game is going to bore them. If this same party fought
>demons, a flight of dragons, or the dark lords of a neighboring country; they would
>not be bored; or laugh at the game; even if they managed to succeed easily.
> To try and hammer in the point further; a 10th level fighter killing kobolds with a
>+6 sword is boring; and a bit silly (especially if it's the climax of a whole adventure).
>The same character managing to beat a demon that he should not be able to
>beat (such as a Balor or something similar) with a few good rolls; or a good
>trick, is not boring; OR funny... it's cool. That's the kind of heroic stuff that
>characters do in books and legends all the time.
> As long as the players make their own choices; and the adventure comes to
>some kind of conclusion; everyone will wind up having fun.
It would seem that you've had some pretty bad experiences with GMs who
force players along structured paths. In my experience this isn't that
common a situation, most GMs I know are happy to modify their scenario
to cope with unexpected actions from the players.
TC
James Smith
"Jeremy Richard" wrote:
>than TSR did. If you want to talk about the age of RPGs; the oldest is actually
>M.A.R. Barker's "Empire of the Petal Throne"; in some respects he can say
>he was robbed. Someone came up with the same ideas that he did; but wound
>up getting printed first (Gygax/Arnenson).
It was my understanding that the world of Tekumel goes back to before
the existence of D&D, but the roleplaying aspect of it doesn't. Dave
Arneson's was the first roleplayed game.
> There is no point to the game if the GM causes you to hit his "extra
>fiendish trap" just because the plot says so. The fun of an RPG is that
>anything can happen. A good GM will have everything defined beforehand; and
>the PCs will be able to do whatever they want. In a real RPG sometimes the
>PCs will throw a major curve ball; and manage to succeed in the most
>dangerous (and unlikely) of situations. By the same token the PCs will
>sometimes give themselves major headaches by overcomplicating things for
>themselves. For a game to be a real RPG; the PCs
>need REAL freedom/free will... not simulated free will where the PCs are to be
>tricked into thinking they are not being led around by a nose ring; but
>they actually are.
That level of free will comes from DM and player attitude, not from the
style of roleplaying adopted.
In a diced game, you come to a pit and role a dice to see if you can jump
across it. You have the choice of jumping or not jumping. The pit is just
there as a distraction. In a diceless game, you come to a pit and it tells
you that you can't go that way. Otherwise, why would there be a pit?
Some people say that the diceless game is allowing you greater free will
because you have a chance to jump the pit. This is nonsense.
In both games whether you get across the pit depends on the reason it
was put there. If it is just a distraction, which in a diced game it
most probably is, then getting across safely depends either on the roll
of a dice or DM whim. In both cases, doing smart things makes it easier
and doing dumb things makes it harder. If it is a barrier, which in a
diceless game it most probably is, nothing you do will get you across
it. Either the DM just says it won't work, or the dice roll gets fudged.
In either game, it may be that you put so much effort into getting across
that pit that the DM lets you even though it mucks up the story.
Straight jacketing all comes down to the attitude of the DM, not to
the roleplaying style used.
Jim
--
James J Smith | The Vault
Faculty of Engineering | http://www.dot.net.au/~drey/jimsmith/ausindex.htm
Newcastle University | Australian rugby league records and history
en...@cc.newcastle.edu.au |
Frank G. Pitt
In article <338768c7...@news.zip.com.au>, t...@zip.com.au (tc) wrote:
>"Jeremy Richard" <Theru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Greyhawk; and it's original modules were the things that did the most for
>>turning RPGs into their current form. It was the second and third generation
>>Greyhawk modules (those that were actually printed; rather than appearing
>>in amateur wargaming newsines) and the old Judge's Guild stuff that truely
>>captured the essence of gaming.
>
>The Greyhawk world setting didn't come out until well after this
>period, and the early modules (S1 and B1 - The Keep on the
>Borderlands) were no differenty from what most DMs were producing.
>They were just dungeons to adventure in, with monsters and traps and
>puzzles.
Greyhawk was Supplement I of _original_ D&D, the beige A5 booklets.
It came out well before S1 and B1, looking at my copy, it is copyright
1975, five years before "The World of Greyhawk" in 1980 which is it what
you are probably thinking of.
S1 (once again looking at my copy) is copyright 1978
>I don't think TSR have ever produced really good modules, not compared
>with the stuff that Chaosium produce for CoC,
Chaosium's stuff is generally superior. Their RQ releases
are fun to read even if you never use them for roleplaying.
However, I thought that the A series was good, especially the later
version released as a single book, which had more of the
background info.
And I also like the T series, but agree with you about the G & D
series. For some strange reason I also like some of the more obscure
ones, such as L1 and C1
>> Fun Fact: Blackmoor still exists today (kind of). Many people think it is dead.
>>The Mystara / D&D known world setting is Blackmoor. It is just far in the future
>>of the ORIGINAL Blackmoor world; so much is supposed to have changed. The
>>old D&D modules (Adventures in Blackmoor, Temple of the Frog, City of the Gods,
>>and The Duchy of Ten) make this point rather clear.
>
>
>Castle Blackmoor, and the Duchy of Tehn are actually areas in the
>World of Greyhawk boxed set.
Yes, but that doesn't invalidate his claim. Blackmoor was out some
years earlier than the World of Greyhawk boxed set, and _that_ came
out after the World of Greyhawk _folder_, which I have.
>Traveller was the first non-TSR RPG (AFAIK) in 1977,
Actually, both Tunnels & Trolls and The Arduin Grimoire were
published before Traveller, the UK version of T&T being published
in January 1977 (the US one some months earlier), and Arduin coming
out in February 1977, narrowly beating Traveller which didn't make
it until March or April, IIRC.
There are several other contenders, ( including En Garde from
GDW which they released before Traveller) but people can argue
over whether they are "really roleplaying games"
> but MSPE didn't
>come out until at least 5 years after Traveller, by which stage there
>were dozens of RPGs about.
You are correct, MSPE was quite a late arrival on the scene.
>> I will tell you flat out; that if you encountered groups with multiple GMs that
>>early on; your experiences are highly unusual.
>
>I'll tell you that my experiences with groups with multiple GMs
>weren't at all unusual. Try talking to people who were playing RPGs
>back in the mid to late 70s.
I'll back you on that one, all of our group took turns, though a couple
of them didn't do as well.
>Cancon 1981 was the first con to have a D&D competition (although
>Cancon in 1980 had a demo game, which was just Keith Wood's normal
This is completely wrong. S1 was released in 1978, and was the
official tournament dungeon at Origins I that year.
Frankie
scott....@3do.com
In article <j.stokes-210...@g21mac14.anu.edu.au>,
j.stokes@bogus%address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) wrote:
>
> > There is no point to the game if the GM causes you to hit his "extra
> > fiendish trap" just because the plot says so.
>
> that players are perfectly entitled to walk past a fiendish trap, I as a
> GM am perfectly entitled to reintroduce it some place else. It's not a
> matter of "Walk into the trap -- you don't have a choice", it's a matter
> of maximising storytelling.
For reference, please also put me in the strict simulatinist camp as
well. O do not think that the 're-introdution' of a fiendishly clever
trap that the character5s honestly avoided is 'cricket".
>
> I mean, the whole point of a fiendish trap is to provide a challenge for
> the players to overcome! Fiendish traps with no way out are no fun, of
> course, but no responsible GM is going to put his players in a situation
> where they can get killed by a fiendish trap without some kind of way out
> or warning. it's not a contest.
>
There are lots of other ways to tie the characters up. oaths and
obligations, and personal ties are better, because often they have
stronger motivastion to do the right thing, even if it may be stupid and
suicidal, I mean if you are late for an appointment, but a woman with a
bloody arm comes to your door, and tells youshe had an accidemnt, and
could dhe use the phone, well chances are you will probably let her.
there are similar reactions that can be elicited from the player
characters, just make sure that the reasons for the woman coming to the
door, evolved legitinamtely from the environment, and not for the
expediancy of the pacing and story. at least to my lights.
> > If a player (or a group of players) constantly does inane things simply
> > so they can have fun destroying the GM's game and watching it degenetate
> > into chaos; then I feel that the GM should walk away from the group and
> > refuse to GM for those players.
Well those are bad players.
>
> "Your character wouldn't do that" works fine for me.
Those are war words if I am with experienced players. That is a comment
that would cause many of the players I know to get up and leave. The GM
runs the world, the Players run the characters, and rarely should they
step on each other's toes.
> I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but if a
> player wants to make gunpowder with the alchemist's ingredients on a
> pre-gunpowder world, the GM is perfectly entitled to say "you don't know
> how to do that" or perhaps more creatively "you mix the powders, and try a
> test ignition, but nothing happens. I guess the local physics don't allow
> gunpowder in this world." You can think of that as "taking away the
> player's free will", and to a certain extent that's true, but it's
> *creatively* taking away their free will, and any adventure needs to have
> limits.
That is a fine example and exhibits reasons for the limitations as
existing within the world, and is a much more palatable denial, than
saying, "Your character wouldn't do that."
>
> Last thing -- I think your point about "storytelling" is valid, and the
> progression of modules towards forcing players to conform to a certain
> plot is notable. "Character immunity" is one phenomenon I find
> particularly distasteful. It's valid to ask: "What are the dice there
> for?" in such a situation. What you've missed is that this trend has
> progressed to the extent that gamers have said: "Well let's get rid of the
> dice!" Roleplaying then becomes "diceless", "freeform" or "live action."
>
> There are serious differences between dicey and non-dicey roleplaying. If
> you feel the need to enforce a fixed plot, with character immunity for
> most of the game, concentrating on "character interaction" then you
> needn't bother with dice. If you can cope with randomness, take character
> death in your stride, and are pretty happy with a much looser plot, use
> dice. But don't expect dicey role playing to work like a novel, and don't
> expect diceless roleplaying to work exactly like a game.
>
Abd thoseare very good points. Now all we need it to hammer out the
vocabulary fto be able to get these style preferences across in a
mutually comprehensive way. Not that these are bad :-0
tc
fra...@mundens.gen.nz (Frank G. Pitt) wrote:
>Greyhawk was Supplement I of _original_ D&D, the beige A5 booklets.
>It came out well before S1 and B1, looking at my copy, it is copyright
>1975, five years before "The World of Greyhawk" in 1980 which is it what
>you are probably thinking of.
Yes I was talking about the World of Greyhawk folder.
>However, I thought that the A series was good, especially the later
>version released as a single book, which had more of the
>background info.
I thought the A series (even when cimbined as a single book was one of
TSR's worst efforts. Every time I played in them or ran them the
players generally got bored after A1.
>And I also like the T series, but agree with you about the G & D
>series. For some strange reason I also like some of the more obscure
>ones, such as L1 and C1
Even though I thought the G & D series weren't great modules, they
always seemed to be fun to play - especially the G series. Something
fun about giant-bashing I guess.
>>Traveller was the first non-TSR RPG (AFAIK) in 1977,
>Actually, both Tunnels & Trolls and The Arduin Grimoire were
>published before Traveller, the UK version of T&T being published
>in January 1977 (the US one some months earlier), and Arduin coming
>out in February 1977, narrowly beating Traveller which didn't make
>it until March or April, IIRC.
I had totally forgotten about T&T and The Arduin Grimiore.
>There are several other contenders, ( including En Garde from
>GDW which they released before Traveller) but people can argue
>over whether they are "really roleplaying games"
I never played En Garde, so I can't comment on how much of an RPG it
is or isn't.
>>Cancon 1981 was the first con to have a D&D competition (although
>>Cancon in 1980 had a demo game, which was just Keith Wood's normal
>This is completely wrong. S1 was released in 1978, and was the
>official tournament dungeon at Origins I that year.
Quite right. I had meant Australian con, but I guess I should have
made that clear :-) Reading about the comps at GenCon and Origins was
one of the things that inspired us to start a D&D comp at Cancon.
>Frankie
TC
Mark Apolinski
scott....@3do.com wrote:
>
> In article <j.stokes-210...@g21mac14.anu.edu.au>,
> j.stokes@bogus%address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) wrote:
> >
> > > There is no point to the game if the GM causes you to hit his "extra
> > > fiendish trap" just because the plot says so.
> >
> > Let me revise that -- STRICT simulationist! Personally, while I think
> > that players are perfectly entitled to walk past a fiendish trap, I as a
> > GM am perfectly entitled to reintroduce it some place else. It's not a
> > matter of "Walk into the trap -- you don't have a choice", it's a matter
> > of maximising storytelling.
>
> For reference, please also put me in the strict simulatinist camp as
> well. O do not think that the 're-introdution' of a fiendishly clever
> trap that the character5s honestly avoided is 'cricket".
Let me ask a hypothetical question. Let's say I have constructed a
dungeon, but all
traps in said dungeon are only labelled "Trap" on the map. Then, when a
party
comes across one of these traps, I refer to a separate sheet of paper
with the specific
details of all the traps I've come up with. I just use the next trap on
the list and that is the
one that the party encounters. Is that 'cricket?'
How about if there are 15 'Traps' indicated on the map, but only 9 on my
list because
the players can't encounter all 15 for one reason or another?
> > "Your character wouldn't do that" works fine for me.
>
> Those are war words if I am with experienced players. That is a comment
> that would cause many of the players I know to get up and leave. The GM
> runs the world, the Players run the characters, and rarely should they
> step on each other's toes.
How about, "I don't understand why your character would do that. Could
you give some
kind of in-character explanation?"
I agree that the Players are responsible for the Characters that they
play. But this also means that they are Responsible to do a good job of
roleplaying and to play a believable character.
Mark
John L. Jones II
scott....@3do.com wrote:
>
> j.stokes@bogus%address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) wrote:
> >
> > "Your character wouldn't do that" works fine for me.
>
> Those are war words if I am with experienced players. That is a
> comment that would cause many of the players I know to get up and
> leave. The GM runs the world, the Players run the characters, and
> rarely should they step on each other's toes.
Agreed. If the GM said something like that to me, chances are very
good that I'd quit playing for that session. If it continued to happen,
then I'd probably quit the campaign for good.
> Scott
--
John L. Jones II E-Mail: bi...@nis.lanl.gov
Iacta alea est.
Gaius Iulius Caesar (circa 100 B.C. - 44 B.C.)
Sea Wasp
John L. Jones II wrote:
>
> scott....@3do.com wrote:
> >
> > j.stokes@bogus%address.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Those are war words if I am with experienced players. That is a
> > comment that would cause many of the players I know to get up and
> > leave. The GM runs the world, the Players run the characters, and
> > rarely should they step on each other's toes.
>
> good that I'd quit playing for that session. If it continued to happen,
> then I'd probably quit the campaign for good.
If it's stated that bluntly, I agree. If it's put as "Are you sure your
character would do that?", then I don't. I've found myself mis-playing a
character on many an occasion, sometimes because I was playing ten or
eleven characters at once and the attitude of Shu LeFang leaked through
and contaminated Erik Nygard's behavior. And I've questioned other
player's actions as well; sometimes they say "yep, I'm sure" sometimes
they think about it for a bit before saying "yeah, because...", and
sometimes they think about it and say "you know, you're right... I don't
think he WOULD do that..."
People make mistakes.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Psychohist
In response to Scott Ruggels' comment:
O do not think that the 're-introdution' of a fiendishly
clever trap that the character5s honestly avoided is
'cricket".
Mark Apolinski asks:
Let me ask a hypothetical question. Let's say I have
constructed a dungeon, but all traps in said dungeon are
only labelled "Trap" on the map. Then, when a party comes
across one of these traps, I refer to a separate sheet of
paper with the specific details of all the traps I've come
up with. I just use the next trap on the list and that is
the one that the party encounters. Is that 'cricket?'
No, it's not cricket. The problem is that the first trap on the list has
a higher probability of being encountered than the last one, despite the
fact that, if the party springs all the trap, only one of them is the
first one. This is a game world inconsistency.
Now, it would be cricket if, instead of selecting the first trap on the
list, you rolled randomly for which trap was selected. In this case,
symmetry between the different traps would be restored.
The difference may seem subtle; it should be more obvious if you consider
the case where the traps on the list are ordered, say from 'most fiendish'
to 'least fiendish'.
How about if there are 15 'Traps' indicated on the map, but
only 9 on my list because the players can't encounter all
15 for one reason or another?
Again no, for the same reasons. Strictly speaking, even rolling randomly
doesn't help in this case unless you select traps with replacement - that
is, you allow yourself to roll the same trap for more than one map
location. Why? Because it's conceivable that the party will come up with
a way to encounter the tenth trap which the gamesmaster had not thought
of, and the probability distribution for the tenth trap must be the same
as for the previous nine, since it was unknown at the start which of the
locations would be the 'tenth' one.
On the other hand, if your list only has a single trap, but that trap is
used every time the party hits a trap location on the map, that's okay,
from a simulationist viewpoint. The situation being simulated is that all
15 locations contain the same trap.
Warren Dew
Jason Stokes
In article <3386B6...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Apolinski
<apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> scott....@3do.com wrote:
> > > "Your character wouldn't do that" works fine for me.
> >
> > Those are war words if I am with experienced players. That is a comment
> > that would cause many of the players I know to get up and leave. The GM
> > runs the world, the Players run the characters, and rarely should they
> > step on each other's toes.
> How about, "I don't understand why your character would do that. Could
> you give some
> kind of in-character explanation?"
That's much better! That or "can you justify that action in terms of the
character your playing?" And sometimes players want to do things on the
basis of what they've learned about the monsters from the monster book,
and I've said "your characters don't know about that weakness!" Maybe
that's bad or undiplomatic gaming, but it drives me nuts when players know
all the twists before they happen.
--
Jason Stokes: j%stokes <at> bohm%anu%edu%au
Replace <at> with @ and % with . to discover my email address.
I apologise for the convoluted spamblock. Blame cyberpromo.com.
Mischa Damon Krilov
Jason Stokes (j.st...@bogus-address.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: That's much better! That or "can you justify that action in terms of the
: character your playing?" And sometimes players want to do things on the
: basis of what they've learned about the monsters from the monster book,
: and I've said "your characters don't know about that weakness!" Maybe
: that's bad or undiplomatic gaming, but it drives me nuts when players know
: all the twists before they happen.
I'll have to speak up and agree here. I've seen (fellow) players act on
past character's knowledge before, and it still drives me crazy. Then
again, as a player, I have an extremely hard time keeping track of
player/character knowledge. In a recent game of Call of Cthulhu, my
character stumbled across some drawings. Upon looking at them, OOC, I just
knew they figured into the Mythos, that they had some occult significance-
but to react, knowing nothing of such things in character? I believe I
made some reference to Masons, drawing a good laugh from those in the
know.
But with some games, the firewall takes a lot of effort to maintain
throughout play. Hypothetically, if a character runs into a dragon, the
player can barely avoid using experience with other characters or peeks
into the manual at the store. Yes, it all comes down to trusting your PCs,
but what about PCs trusting themselves?
Me.
--
...............Mischa Krilov <mkr...@tiger.lsu.edu>..............
: If one person wants to play bridge, and another to play poker, :
:you can't please both with one game, or even one deck. -Warren Dew:
'''''''''''''<http://wwwlfpl.forestry.lsu.edu/mischa/>''''''''''''
Ennead
Sea Wasp wrote:
: John L. Jones II wrote:
[re: "Your character wouldn't do that."]
: > If the GM said something like that to me, chances are very
: > good that I'd quit playing for that session. If it continued to happen,
: > then I'd probably quit the campaign for good.
: If it's stated that bluntly, I agree. If it's put as "Are you sure your
: character would do that?", then I don't.
[Sea Wasp goes on to explain that sometimes errors in
role-play *do* happen, and when they do, he prefers for it to be
addressed.]
I agree with Sea Wasp's overall point, but even the phrasing
"are you sure your character would do that" would be problematic for
me.
Perhaps I'm just unusually defensive, but phrased that
way, the question sounds a bit too accusatory for my tastes. I
can all too easily imagine reacting to it with instinctive denial
("Of COURSE I'm sure!"), which would be counter-productive if I
really _did_ need to get a grip on my IC.
Even worse, I can also imagine the "Are you sure..."
question leading me to doubt my own role-play, which could be
disastrous if I really _had_ been acting IC. As a player, I've
found that too much self-examination can sometimes be death to
immersion. Once you start asking yourself questions like, "Am
I _really_ in-character here?" then you are evidently _not_, and
it can sometimes be tough to get back with the flow again. Such
has, at any rate, been my experience.
In such situations, I far prefer to be asked something
like, "Why is Tydfal acting that way? I'm not sure I understand
what's going on in his head."
This approach sounds less accusatory, as there could
be a number of reasons for the GM to want to know what Tydfal
is thinking other than the suspicion that I'm role-playing badly.
It also isn't nearly as likely to throw me into a paroxysm of
self-doubt and over-analysis, as it avoids the lethal question
"Are you *sure?*" (I'm rarely absolutely certain of *anything*,
really -- I am fundamentally agnostic in outlook -- and so
questions of certitude are probably particularly troublesome
for me; others may not have the same problem.)
For this phrasing to work well as a means of cutting
off RP errors at the pass, however, the GM or group really
has to be willing to accept "I don't know why; he just *is*"
as a valid answer. Immersive players cannot be expected to
explain their characters' motivations on command, and they
shouldn't be led to believe that an inability to explain
is a symptom of poor RPing. On the contrary, often an
inability to explain is evidence that the action really is
IC, while a meta-game explanation is evidence that something
is amiss.
-- Sarah
Sea Wasp
Ennead wrote:
> For this phrasing to work well as a means of cutting
> off RP errors at the pass, however, the GM or group really
> has to be willing to accept "I don't know why; he just *is*"
> as a valid answer. Immersive players cannot be expected to
> explain their characters' motivations on command, and they
> shouldn't be led to believe that an inability to explain
> is a symptom of poor RPing. On the contrary, often an
> inability to explain is evidence that the action really is
> IC, while a meta-game explanation is evidence that something
> is amiss.
I can't accept THAT. While I may not be able to describe every thought
process that goes on inside my head, there has NEVER been a situation in
my life where, if asked suddenly "Why did you do that", I would be
unable to answer. I'd be able to answer in great detail, if necessary,
even when I've done the most apparently (and even actually) irrational
things. I may not be able to CHANGE habits of action easily, but I know
where they come from. And I think the same is true of anyone else. Many
people don't WANT to know the answers, so they avoid them -- I mean,
does some powerful politician who gets caught with some bimbo (not his
wife) really want to know the stupid reasons that he chose to do this
knowing how likely it was that he'd get caught? Probably not.
Introspection isn't a big thing in politics or even as a general rule in
America as a whole. But if you're immersive, you MUST be introspective
by nature; how else could you get into a character well enough to "be"
them?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Mary K. Kuhner
I like "Why is <the PC> doing that? What is he thinking? What's
going on in his head?" or similar variants. They make the polite
presumption that the player *is* doing the right thing, which helps
avoid defensive responses.
In article <5maglq$kh3$1...@nadine.teleport.com> Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
> For this phrasing to work well as a means of cutting
>off RP errors at the pass, however, the GM or group really
>has to be willing to accept "I don't know why; he just *is*"
>as a valid answer. Immersive players cannot be expected to
>explain their characters' motivations on command, and they
>shouldn't be led to believe that an inability to explain
>is a symptom of poor RPing.
Yes indeed. I would be lost in a group that demanded facile
explanations of every character action, just as I would be lost in
one that demanded a character writeup which encompassed everything
about the character's personality.
I recall a recent session that ended with me asking the GM, in complete
bafflement, why my PC had just done what he'd done. After about half
an hour we figured it out. It took the PC quite a bit longer, though.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
>But if you're immersive, you MUST be introspective
>by nature; how else could you get into a character well enough to "be"
>them?
"Why didn't Markus try to fool the cult leader, after setting everything
up to do so?"
"He just didn't feel like it. Um, it was a surprise to me too. Let
me think. It felt...unclean, somehow? Maybe because she's in prison
now, and therefore feels like a victim, not an adversary? No, that's not
it."
"Is he just getting tired of the pretense?"
"No! He was actually quite disappointed by his own actions; he was
looking forward to another tense session trying to fool her, and
then suddenly he went and blew it all. --Was I out of character?"
"That sounds a lot more like personality growth than out-of-character
play to me."
"Yeah, it does. But what the heck is going on with him?"
Half an hour of discussion later.... "Oh! He's being trying to persuade
Black to be honest with him, and it's slowly--and very much against
his will--dawning on him that that means *he* has to be honest.
He's such a natural-born liar, that's a major change of mindset.
It's percolating into areas where he wouldn't expect it to, like
dealing with the cult leader."
All I can say is that this felt like discovering Markus' reason,
not like inventing it, but it really did take half an hour (much too
long for mid-session). Sea Wasp, I think some people's motivations
are closer to the surface than others'. Yours are very close, and
thus you don't easily grasp that not everyone is like that. I'm
introspective, but it can take me a long, long time to figure out
what's going on in my own head, and my Immersive PCs behave
just the same.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mark Apolinski
What about a situation in which I as GM or Player say something like, "I
find that I just don't like your character." I mean, it happens a lot
in TV shows or movies that I watch. Sometimes, a particular character
just isn't likeable for me. This is not that I'm telling the Player
that they're doing a bad job of acting, though. And this would be an
especially sensitive problem if I were the GM and acknowledged this kind
of bias.
What do you say everyone?
Mark
Mary K. Kuhner
For me it would depend on the specifics of "doesn't like". I have
played alongside lots of PCs whom I would not want to know personally;
not a problem. I've played alongside some whom I would hate to have as
protagonists of a book, since I couldn't symapthize with them. But
since they're not *my* PCs, I don't necesarily have to. So again this
is not necessarily a problem.
However, if the PC annoys me to the degree that, say, the chaos
mathematician from _Jurassic Park_ did (i.e. whenever he had a speech
I went out for popcorn), then it's a problem. The game's not much fun
if one or more PCs affects me like nails on the chalkboard.
My husband once ran a character, Skaithe, in one of my games who was
paranoid and prone to "strike first to make sure" reasoning. Skaithe
was in many ways a summary of the side of my husband's personality I
don't like, and I really didn't enjoy running for him. When he got
himself killed, I said "Play someone different. I don't want to see
that archetype again." I don't know what I would have done if he
hadn't gotten himself killed. The campaign might have eventually
foundered as Skaithe kept pushing it further and further into a style
of play I didn't enjoy.
If the GM doesn't like the character because the character doesn't fit
the game, s/he might try more pre-game negotiation or group character
design next time. Skaithe was not only unpleasant, he pushed play
towards massacres from ambush and a PC party which cared only for
itself; not the game I wanted. In retrospect this might have been
avoidable with more careful pre-game discussion. I think it's often the
case when the GM hates a character that s/he really hates the effect
that character has on the game, and maybe that's the way to approach
it.
Incidentally, I once managed to have a fairly well developed character
in one of our multi-character games who *I* didn't like at all. Luckily
he shortly did something that made it quite reasonable for the other
PCs to leave him off on an uninhabited jungle shore with a bottle of
water and a knife, and say "Good riddance." There were other PCs in
that party whom I didn't approve of, but I had some kind of sympathy
or at least empathy for them. This one, though, was a complete ass.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
scott....@3do.com
In article <33895C...@ix.netcom.com>,
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> What about a situation in which I as GM or Player say something like, "I
> find that I just don't like your character." I mean, it happens a lot
> in TV shows or movies that I watch. Sometimes, a particular character
> just isn't likeable for me. This is not that I'm telling the Player
> that they're doing a bad job of acting, though. And this would be an
> especially sensitive problem if I were the GM and acknowledged this kind
> of bias.
>
>
Player to player, i would shut up, and swallow it. If my >character<
didn't like the other one, There might be some in game action. but not
before I had enogh mutineers in place. :-) As a player i would just lump
it, until the situation changed. I used to be in large fantasy games woth
characters i didn't like. So the party factionalized.
As a GM. I would handle it in my usual insensitive fashion :-) Actually
i would probably handle it off line. But if the player was clueless, I
would wait for an ingame mistake, and be merciless (but undirected) in
the results.
scott....@3do.com
In article <19970525044...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
>
> In response to Scott Ruggels' comment:
>
> O do not think that the 're-introdution' of a fiendishly
> clever trap that the character5s honestly avoided is
> 'cricket".
>
> Mark Apolinski asks:
>
> Let me ask a hypothetical question. Let's say I have
> constructed a dungeon, but all traps in said dungeon are
> only labelled "Trap" on the map. Then, when a party comes
> across one of these traps, I refer to a separate sheet of
> paper with the specific details of all the traps I've come
> up with. I just use the next trap on the list and that is
> the one that the party encounters. Is that 'cricket?'
>
> No, it's not cricket. The problem is that the first trap on the list has
> a higher probability of being encountered than the last one, despite the
> fact that, if the party springs all the trap, only one of them is the
> first one. This is a game world inconsistency.
>
> Now, it would be cricket if, instead of selecting the first trap on the
> list, you rolled randomly for which trap was selected. In this case,
> symmetry between the different traps would be restored.
>
All good ideas, but my preference would be to have those traps keyed to
specific map locations before the evening's play, so that you know what
trapdoes where, is also allows one to use the terrain to the
advantage/deficit of the trap, depending upon the cleverness of the trap
layer.
>
> How about if there are 15 'Traps' indicated on the map, but
> only 9 on my list because the players can't encounter all
> 15 for one reason or another?
>
> Again no, for the same reasons. Strictly speaking, even rolling randomly
> doesn't help in this case unless you select traps with replacement - that
> is, you allow yourself to roll the same trap for more than one map
> location. Why? Because it's conceivable that the party will come up with
> a way to encounter the tenth trap which the gamesmaster had not thought
> of, and the probability distribution for the tenth trap must be the same
> as for the previous nine, since it was unknown at the start which of the
> locations would be the 'tenth' one.
Very good point there, Warren.
Glen Barnett
In article <33882912....@news.zip.com.au>, tc <t...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>fra...@mundens.gen.nz (Frank G. Pitt) wrote:
>>>Cancon 1981 was the first con to have a D&D competition (although
>>>Cancon in 1980 had a demo game, which was just Keith Wood's normal
>
>>official tournament dungeon at Origins I that year.
>
>Quite right. I had meant Australian con, but I guess I should have
>made that clear :-)
It was obvious to me. On aus.games.roleplay, it shouldn't be necessary
to say it; but on r.g.f.advocacy, of course it is necessary - you just
have to keep an eye on where things are crossposted.
Glen
John R. Snead
Sea Wasp (sea...@wizvax.net) wrote:
: Ennead wrote:
: > For this phrasing to work well as a means of cutting
: > off RP errors at the pass, however, the GM or group really
: > has to be willing to accept "I don't know why; he just *is*"
: > as a valid answer. Immersive players cannot be expected to
: > explain their characters' motivations on command, and they
: > shouldn't be led to believe that an inability to explain
: > is a symptom of poor RPing. On the contrary, often an
: > inability to explain is evidence that the action really is
: > IC, while a meta-game explanation is evidence that something
: > is amiss.
: I can't accept THAT. While I may not be able to describe every thought
: process that goes on inside my head, there has NEVER been a situation in
: my life where, if asked suddenly "Why did you do that", I would be
: unable to answer. I'd be able to answer in great detail, if necessary,
: even when I've done the most apparently (and even actually) irrational
: things. I may not be able to CHANGE habits of action easily, but I know
: where they come from. And I think the same is true of anyone else. Many
: people don't WANT to know the answers, so they avoid them -- I mean,
: does some powerful politician who gets caught with some bimbo (not his
: wife) really want to know the stupid reasons that he chose to do this
: knowing how likely it was that he'd get caught? Probably not.
: Introspection isn't a big thing in politics or even as a general rule in
: America as a whole. But if you're immersive, you MUST be introspective
: by nature; how else could you get into a character well enough to "be"
: them?
Well, I've found this partly depends on how introspective the character is.
Some PCs (like some people) react to situations w/o thinking. Getting
deeply into this mind-set involves often results in situations where you
have no immediate idea why the PC just acted as they did.
Sarah's comments make a whole lot of sense to me. If the PC rarely
examines their actions and acts on impulse, playing such a PC
immersively necessitates thinking in this fashion while playing.
Also, I've found their is a *big* difference between being able to
explain one's actions at all, and being able to explain them within
5 minutes or so of someone asking for an explanation.
Sure, if a reasonably introspective person sits around and thinks about
why they or their PC did X for an hour or two they will almost always
find a reason. This works great between games, but would rather
disrupt play, since I tend to find that such thought precludes performing
other activities at the same time (including role-playing).
Having a GM ask a deeply immersive player "why did your character
do X" after the game is often an excellent idea if the GM is confused.
However, I don't think it at all unreasonable to expect the player to be
unable to come up with an answer within a couple of minutes. Can
you always explain the true motivations for your actions (as opposed
to rationalizations or excuses) within 1-5 minutes?
Comments?
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Ennead
Mark Apolinski wrote:
: What about a situation in which I as GM or Player say something like, "I
: find that I just don't like your character."
There are two possible meanings to "I don't like your
character," and my response to the situation would really depend
on which was the intended meaning.
If "I don't like your character" means simply that -- "I
find that person unpleasant and would hate to meet him in real
life" -- then I don't see a problem with it. A number of my
favorite characters, both in regular fiction and in RPG, have
been people I would _loathe_ if I ever met them in real life.
As a player, I don't really care if the GM likes my character
in that sense, and being informed of the GM's dislike would not
hurt my feelings -- in fact, I might well consider it a compliment
to my role-play.
If "I don't like your character" means "I don't enjoy
running for your character or playing with him, and I think
that he makes the game worse by his inclusion," on the other
hand, then that's a serious problem. It probably _would_ hurt
my feelings a bit if the GM told me that, but I think that
nonetheless, the conversation would be necessary.
There are always, in my experience, some characters who
fuel the GM's imagination and excitement more than others, but
it is a matter of courtesy for the GM to try to mask this fact.
If a character is so utterly uninspiring to the GM that this
becomes next to impossible for him, though, then something has
got to give.
If I were playing in a game in which the GM found my
character so difficult to deal with that it was causing him
anguish, then I would want him to let me know about it. I would,
however, appreciate a more tactful approach than: "Sarah, your
character sucks; why don't you make a new one."
It would be better, IMO, for the GM to try to dredge up
the reason for his frustration, and then to explain it in less
personal terms. If a GM feels this strongly about a character,
then there's probably an issue of game flow or balance or direction
at stake, and as a player, I would far rather hear about *that.*
For one thing, it's less personal. For another, it opens up the
possibility that something short of retiring the character might
be done to ameliorate the GM's feelings of dislike.
It's an interesting question. My group tends to run
into the opposite problem: the player tires of the character
and wants to retire her, while the GM whines and pleads because
he thought the character was cool and had *so much stuff* he
wanted still to do with her.
-- Sarah
Matthew Colville
> What about a situation in which I as GM or Player say something like, "I
> find that I just don't like your character." I mean, it happens a lot
> in TV shows or movies that I watch. Sometimes, a particular character
> just isn't likeable for me. This is not that I'm telling the Player
> that they're doing a bad job of acting, though. And this would be an
> especially sensitive problem if I were the GM and acknowledged this kind
> of bias.
>
>
> What do you say everyone?
>
> Mark
There's a difference between dissapproving of someone's character, and
not being 'into it.' If you, as GM, dissaprove of someone's character,
then you tell them to try again. . .it's as simple as that. You're not
under any obligation to accept any character idea anyone has.
Mind you, your players aren't under any obligation to want to play,
either. If someone comes to you and says "I'll play, but only if I can
play this character," and you don't like that character, then it's
important you say "See you later." You'll be doing everyone a disservice
by running a campaign for characters you dislike. You won't enjoy
yourself as much and, therefore, neither will everyone else.
If your players are people who aren't mature enough to deal with the
idea that you need to agree, compromise, whatever, then you're screwed.
However, if you're merely not 'into' the person's character, just let
'em play and give yourself some time. I find that, as long as the
player's don't constantly harp at me about how much they want thier
character to shine, I will eventually get behind each character, in turn.
Scott DiBerardino
Jason Stokes (j.stokes@bogus%address.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: > There are serious differences between dicey and non-dicey roleplaying. If
: > you feel the need to enforce a fixed plot, with character immunity for
: > most of the game, concentrating on "character interaction" then you
: > needn't bother with dice. If you can cope with randomness, take character
: > death in your stride, and are pretty happy with a much looser plot, use
: > dice. But don't expect dicey role playing to work like a novel, and don't
: > expect diceless roleplaying to work exactly like a game.
: >
And Scott (scott....@3do.com) responded:
: And those are very good points. Now all we need it to hammer out the
: vocabulary to be able to get these style preferences across in a
: mutually comprehensive way. Not that these are bad :-0
:
My experience runs contrary to what Jason predicts above, but, I think,
for different reasons. Here is my stab at hammeing it out into common
vocab.:
The heavily diced gaming I've been doing lately has been much more
novelistic than the lightly diced gaming I've done in the past. The
campaign I am currently involved in is strongly directed. It is obvious
that the GM has a very specific course for us to follow and looking back
on earlier story arcs there are literary techniques at work: parallelism
and foreshadowing, as well as a distinct flow of plot. (I am blanking on
the terms; what comes before climax and denoument?) In fact, the GM
mentioned when we were coming up on the "third act".
His campaigns are very pleasing to me from a formal perspective.
Caveat:
By heavily diced, I mean that dice are used to adjudicate at least combat,
perception, magic, and exercises of will. I am not as overwhelmed with the
mechanics as I was when I played a White Wolf game (briefly) with this
same GM, but the character stats and dice-rolling are felt presences.
In contrast, the various campaigns I was involved with in Sarah's
household low dicey. Mechanics were mainly used for magic and combat;
with dice coming into play with frequency ranging from rarely to
occasionally. The emphasis in all campaigns was on full iteration of world
and characters, (one might say simulation if one dared) which played havoc
with strongly scripted campaigns in this world. The proverbial butterfly
crushed under foot could and did rebound with great force, changing much
more than would have been possible in a less elaborated world, or in a
more directed campaign. Structure arose, and the GM's were able to carry
out their plot in aesthetic and satisfying fashions (at least from my
perspective), but it certainly did not have a novelistic quality. The
pacing was not the least like a traditional narrative. If it was like a
film it was not according to the Hollywood code.
So which of these felt more like a game?
Well, if feeling like a game is having the rules and mechanics apparent,
then it's certainly the former. Unfortunately, as much as I like playing
games of all types, the more I feel role-playing to be like a game, the
more I am inclined to dislike it. So it is harder for me to sort out
similarities of this type. Ah, here's another distinction. Each set of
games encouraged a different response in me that affected my role-play.
In the second example here, I formed deep connections to various
characters and most of my attention was focused on being IC and on what my
character would do in situations. In the first example, I spent most of
my time thinking about what the solution was to the puzzle before us, or
what direction the GM was leading us, and so on. I did slip in character,
but this was most often during combat. I think I discussed at some other
time how the character development of our characters was programed in part
into the plot, so I won't go into it now, but that's another aspect of
that GM's direction and tying in of all events into nice plotting and
story arcs.
Whew. So, there's my long-winded response. Please let me know if that
sheds any light or spreads more shadow.
Yrs.,
Emily
-scott \\ sco...@javanet.com \\ www.javanet.com/~scottd/banana.html
"Quantitative action works by violence and breeds reaction.
Qualitative action works by example and invites reciprocation."
-- Robert Fripp
Ken Hall (Supervisor)
(snip)
^ It's an interesting question. My group tends to run
^into the opposite problem: the player tires of the character
^and wants to retire her, while the GM whines and pleads because
^he thought the character was cool and had *so much stuff* he
^wanted still to do with her.
^
He oughtta make the character an NPC then.
--
"If you get all your information from local TV news, you end up knowing less than if you just stayed home on the couch and drank gin from the bottle."--Garrison Keillor
PS--email addressed is hacked as spam-shield; cut the x to reply
Ross Kester
John L. Jones II wrote:
> > Those are war words if I am with experienced players. That is a
> > comment that would cause many of the players I know to get up and
> > leave. The GM runs the world, the Players run the characters, and
> > rarely should they step on each other's toes.
> good that I'd quit playing for that session. If it continued to happen,
> then I'd probably quit the campaign for good.
> John L. Jones II E-Mail: bi...@nis.lanl.gov
Hmmm...I'm not so sure I agree with that line of thought. I think there are times when
a DM should point out a strong deviation in character behaviour. For example, I was
running the Avatar Trilogy modules (I was caught in a pinch having to DM on zero notice,
and these were all I had to run...Lord, they were terrible...), and one of the PC's
tried to do something akin to the Lone Ranger killing Mother Teresa. What he wanted to
do was totally against the being and fiber of his character, plus it ran the risk of
ruining the champaign. I just had to sit back and say "What the heck are you thinking?"
(a near quote). Well, he explained, and it made perfect sense. Problem averted, and
everyone understood why events went the way they did. Sometimes you have to question a
player, because his or her actions, if way out of character, can effect the game for
everyone, not just the GM. I think the main job of a GM is to try to keep the majority
of the players as happy as possible (and hopefully him/herself to boot). If a player is
about to do something that will ruin the game for everyone, and is way out of character,
by all means, question it. I have, on several occasions, asked someone to rethink an
action to save the entire campaign for the group, though I have never forbidden anyone
to do something. If one player feels that he doesn't need to justify his actions to the
GM, what about to the other players, whose game he/she may be effecting? -Ross.
Have a productive day, citizen. :|