Fundamental Rules of Role Playing
Ubiquitous
there. Someone was whining about not being allowed to do something they wanted
to do, because they were a role-player, and it would take forever to get to the
point they'd be allowed to do it, even though they were given a ROLE-PLAYING
reason why it was so. Made me want to whack 'em.
So, I was thinking. What are the basic, fundamental rules of role-playing?
Not game specific, and not mechanics.
I was thinking along the lines of:
Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
Rule 2: People are three dimensional not two, so characters should be too.
Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise with the player.
Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without serious consideration of consequences.
(Because understanding that alignment is not a definition but a guideline is
important, too. Some players use alignment to make decisions insteadd of
rationale)
What else should we add?
---
Islam is a peaceful religion, just as long as the women are beaten, the boys
buggered and the infidels are killed.
Ken Andrews
(Ubiquitous) wrote:
>Ok, so I've been lurking on a gaming forum and want to slap all the posters
>there. Someone was whining about not being allowed to do something they wanted
>to do, because they were a role-player, and it would take forever to get to the
>point they'd be allowed to do it, even though they were given a ROLE-PLAYING
>reason why it was so. Made me want to whack 'em.
>
>So, I was thinking. What are the basic, fundamental rules of role-playing?
>Not game specific, and not mechanics.
>
>I was thinking along the lines of:
>
>Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
>forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
>
>Rule 2: People are three dimensional not two, so characters should be too.
>
>Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise with the player.
>
>Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without serious consideration of consequences.
>
>(Because understanding that alignment is not a definition but a guideline is
>important, too. Some players use alignment to make decisions insteadd of
>rationale)
>
>What else should we add?
"The Rules of DM Unfairness", 1999/01/29, written by me by an amazing
coincidence. Repeated here for the Google-impaired.
The DM is not required to explain elementary kinetics.
I brace myself and angle my shield to deflect the boulders!
The DM is not required to explain common sense.
I block the ballista bolt with my shield.
The DM is not required to force players to read their spells'
descriptions.
(While in Hell): I'm casting Gate. Which God? I don't care! Just
one at random.
The DM is not required to explain common politeness.
I tell the old fart to get out of the way.
The DM is not required to explain the idea of caution.
I kick the door open and charge in!
The DM is not required to explain the difference between you believing
and gravity believing.
I believe in my illusory bridge, so it'll support me.
The DM is not required to 'go by the book'.
(From someone who's never met one): Gas Spores can't do that!
The DM is not required to explain Law.
(Middle of the afternoon, busy London street): I kill the beggar.
The DM is not required to explain RHIP.
The Prince pushed me out of the way?!? Nobody does that to me!
The DM is not required to use only D&D material.
Aliens!?!?! They don't exist!!!
The DM is not required to prevent the PC's suicide.
(From a L4 Fighter on a ledge 60' above): I'll jump down on the
Beholder's top and stab him.
Ian R Malcomson
<web...@polaris.net> writes
>Ok, so I've been lurking on a gaming forum and want to slap all the posters
>there. Someone was whining about not being allowed to do something they wanted
>to do, because they were a role-player, and it would take forever to get to the
>point they'd be allowed to do it, even though they were given a ROLE-PLAYING
>reason why it was so. Made me want to whack 'em.
>
>So, I was thinking. What are the basic, fundamental rules of role-playing?
>Not game specific, and not mechanics.
>
>I was thinking along the lines of:
>
>Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
>forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
>
>Rule 2: People are three dimensional not two, so characters should be too.
>
>Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise with the player.
>
>Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without
>serious consideration of consequences.
>
>(Because understanding that alignment is not a definition but a guideline is
>important, too. Some players use alignment to make decisions insteadd of
>rationale)
>
>What else should we add?
nn. There's more than just you around the table - be considerate to the
fact that *everyone* wants to have fun; don't try to have fun at the
expense of your gaming compatriots.
>Islam is a peaceful religion, just as long as the women are beaten, the boys
>buggered and the infidels are killed.
[*phew*, resisted the temptation of pointing out that most, if not all,
religious institutions have an advocacy of arseholes - oh, oops]
--
Ian R Malcomson
Håvard Faanes
>Ok, so I've been lurking on a gaming forum and want to slap all the posters
>there. Someone was whining about not being allowed to do something they wanted
>to do, because they were a role-player, and it would take forever to get to the
>point they'd be allowed to do it, even though they were given a ROLE-PLAYING
>reason why it was so. Made me want to whack 'em.
Agreed. Especially if one player wants to roleplay out every tedious
detail of his character's life while the other players are ready to get
on with the scenario, that player needs a good whacking.
>Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
>forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
Ultimately, maybe. But in most cases I think gaming groups are better off
with everyone giving and taking. If the players and the GM don't know
eachother very well, your option is probably the best. But if the players
and the GM are all good friends, it might be better for the GM to at
least consider ideas from the players, maybe even change the setting
because of those ideas.
In the RPG sorcerer, this has been taken to the extreme. There, the
players have most of the responsibility for creating the setting, the
scenarios and their characters.
>Rule 2: People are three dimensional not two, so characters should be too.
Not sure if I consider it a rule, but it certainly is a good thing! :)
>Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise with the player.
This one is good.
>Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without serious consideration of consequences.
D&D is one of the very few games with Alignment.
I've rarely seen it contribute in any positve way to any gaming
experience.
>---
>Islam is a peaceful religion, just as long as the women are beaten, the boys
>buggered and the infidels are killed.
Is that your way of making the world more tolerant?
Havard
hikaru
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:cgkhk2$j8s$2...@news.utelfla.com...
First- cool sig. Source?
Second- On my GM screen, I have my "!0 Commandments of Role Play" . they
are as follows:
Trav's Ten Commandments of Role-playing
I: The Gamemaster is always right. Thou shalt not dispute his or her rulings
in game.
II: Thou shalt not bitch, gripe, or complain, or verily bolts of lightening
from on high shalt punish thy character.
III: Thou shalt not use out of game knowledge in game. If thy character
does not know something, thou must needs play accordingly. And verily,
offering advice to, or accepting advice from, a fellow player whose
character cannot speak with thy character is likewise a grievous offense.
IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them, respect
thyself, respect the game.
V: If thou shouldst betray thy fellow players and their characters, thou
shalt have no place to petition the Gamemaster for mercy whence thy
come-uppence is laid upon thee.
VI: Save that thou art the Gamemaster, thou shalt not fudge thy die rolls,
lie about thy characters, or in any other way cheat at the game. If thou
shouldst think about doing so, thou shouldst grow up already.
VII: Thou shalt not screw with the Gamemaster.
VIII: Thou shalt be on time for the game, fully prepared, with thy character
sheet and thy dice. Thou shalt not unduly slow down the game.
VIV: Thou shalt not touch another players dice or miniatures without
permission.
X: Thou shalt remember always that this is a game. If thou art having fun,
thou art winning.
--
Trav
hood...@KODT.net
To reply, replace 'KODT' with 'rfci'.
11/Sept/01: Never forget. Never forgive.
"We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we
please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to
appropriate a dollar of public money."
- David Crockett, Congressman 1827-35
Håvard Faanes
>The DM is not required to explain elementary kinetics.
> I brace myself and angle my shield to deflect the boulders!
Depends on the genre. I know several games in which this could occur.
>The DM is not required to explain common sense.
> I block the ballista bolt with my shield.
Same as above.
>The DM is not required to force players to read their spells'
>descriptions.
> (While in Hell): I'm casting Gate. Which God? I don't care! Just
>one at random.
Different gaming styles. I bet Rules Lawyers love this style of gaming. I
sure don't.
>The DM is not required to explain common politeness.
> I tell the old fart to get out of the way.
Setting specific. Are you a samurai in feudal japan? Okay you're still
rude, but the peasant is wise not to complain.
>The DM is not required to explain the idea of caution.
> I kick the door open and charge in!
Okay.
>The DM is not required to explain the difference between you believing
>and gravity believing.
> I believe in my illusory bridge, so it'll support me.
In Glorantha, and in TORG's Aysle Reality, Illusions are real.
>The DM is not required to 'go by the book'.
> (From someone who's never met one): Gas Spores can't do that!
Agreed. :)
>The DM is not required to explain Law.
> (Middle of the afternoon, busy London street): I kill the beggar.
Common sense is good, but if playing in an exotic setting this might be
modified.
>The DM is not required to explain RHIP.
> The Prince pushed me out of the way?!? Nobody does that to me!
RHIP?
>The DM is not required to use only D&D material.
> Aliens!?!?! They don't exist!!!
Agreed. :)
>The DM is not required to prevent the PC's suicide.
> (From a L4 Fighter on a ledge 60' above): I'll jump down on the
>Beholder's top and stab him.
Agred :)
Havard
Håvard Faanes
>nn. There's more than just you around the table - be considerate to the
>fact that *everyone* wants to have fun; don't try to have fun at the
>expense of your gaming compatriots.
Best one so far :)
Havard
No 33 Secretary
news:--qdnZMQ2N-...@rfci.net:
> Second- On my GM screen, I have my "!0 Commandments of Role Play" .
> they are as follows:
>
> Trav's Ten Commandments of Role-playing
>
> I: The Gamemaster is always right. Thou shalt not dispute his or her
> rulings in game.
Except when he's wrong. Then, you should probably find a new gaming group.
>
> II: Thou shalt not bitch, gripe, or complain, or verily bolts of
> lightening from on high shalt punish thy character.
Unless you're bored, and not having any fun. Then, you should probably find
a new gaming group.
>
> III: Thou shalt not use out of game knowledge in game. If thy
> character does not know something, thou must needs play accordingly.
> And verily, offering advice to, or accepting advice from, a fellow
> player whose character cannot speak with thy character is likewise a
> grievous offense.
It's only a game. Deal with it.
>
> IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them, respect
> thyself, respect the game.
Heh. Yeah. That's gonna happen.
>
> V: If thou shouldst betray thy fellow players and their characters,
> thou shalt have no place to petition the Gamemaster for mercy whence
> thy come-uppence is laid upon thee.
Finally, one I agree with.
>
> VI: Save that thou art the Gamemaster, thou shalt not fudge thy die
> rolls, lie about thy characters, or in any other way cheat at the
> game. If thou shouldst think about doing so, thou shouldst grow up
> already.
Unless, of course, you can do it without getting caught.
>
> VII: Thou shalt not screw with the Gamemaster.
Good dope you're smoking, there. However, refer to rule # V.
>
> VIII: Thou shalt be on time for the game, fully prepared, with thy
> character sheet and thy dice. Thou shalt not unduly slow down the
> game.
Unless Real Life intrudes.
>
> VIV: Thou shalt not touch another players dice or miniatures without
> permission.
Superstition is for stupid people.
>
> X: Thou shalt remember always that this is a game. If thou art having
> fun, thou art winning.
>
Indeed.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Ken Andrews
> Ken Andrews wrote:
>
> >The DM is not required to explain elementary kinetics.
> > I brace myself and angle my shield to deflect the boulders!
>
> Depends on the genre. I know several games in which this could occur.
Yes, and I know a couple of shields that will allow it as well. The rule is
still valid.
> >The DM is not required to explain common sense.
> > I block the ballista bolt with my shield.
>
> Same as above.
Same as above.
> >The DM is not required to force players to read their spells'
> >descriptions.
> > (While in Hell): I'm casting Gate. Which God? I don't care! Just
> >one at random.
>
> Different gaming styles. I bet Rules Lawyers love this style of gaming. I
> sure don't.
I don't force the characters to cast spells. I'm not going to hold their
hands and remind them, unless it's an obscure interaction that they
reasonably wouldn't know about. The example actually happened in my
campaign.
> >The DM is not required to explain common politeness.
> > I tell the old fart to get out of the way.
>
> Setting specific. Are you a samurai in feudal japan? Okay you're still
> rude, but the peasant is wise not to complain.
Who said it was a peasant? It might be an elderly samurai. The concept of
politeness is universal. The concept of *being polite* also is.
> >The DM is not required to explain the idea of caution.
> > I kick the door open and charge in!
>
> Okay.
>
> >The DM is not required to explain the difference between you believing
> >and gravity believing.
> > I believe in my illusory bridge, so it'll support me.
>
> In Glorantha, and in TORG's Aysle Reality, Illusions are real.
You can always find singular exceptions. These are general rules. Suppose
he'd drawn a picture of a boat and expected to use it to sail away?
> >The DM is not required to 'go by the book'.
> > (From someone who's never met one): Gas Spores can't do that!
>
> Agreed. :)
>
> >The DM is not required to explain Law.
> > (Middle of the afternoon, busy London street): I kill the beggar.
>
> Common sense is good, but if playing in an exotic setting this might be
> modified.
General rules. I can show you areas in my own campaign where this action is
legal. Doesn't make the rule invalid.
> >The DM is not required to explain RHIP.
> > The Prince pushed me out of the way?!? Nobody does that to me!
>
> RHIP?
Rank Hath It's Privileges. The Prince has the right to push you, you don't
have the right to push him.
Marc L.
news:cgkhk2$j8s$2...@news.utelfla.com:
> Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without
> serious consideration of consequences.
>
>
Sorry, but as alignment does not exist in all RPGs this should
not exits as a fundamental rule of role playing.
Marc L.
news:slrncisjp...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no:
>>nn. There's more than just you around the table - be considerate
>>to the fact that *everyone* wants to have fun; don't try to have
>>fun at the expense of your gaming compatriots.
>
> Best one so far :)
>
I second that.
Marc L.
> In the RPG sorcerer, this has been taken to the extreme. There,
> the players have most of the responsibility for creating the
> setting, the scenarios and their characters.
>
>
Have you played this game? It sounds intersting to me and would
love to read about your experiences with it, assuming you have any. I
particularly liked the resolution mechanic. The setting seems good too.
Marc L.
news:Xns95518E5F43C2Dta...@216.168.3.50:
>> VIV: Thou shalt not touch another players dice or miniatures without
>> permission.
>
> Superstition is for stupid people.
>
"It is bad luck to be superstitious."
Peter Knutsen
Håvard Faanes wrote:
> Ken Andrews wrote:
>>The DM is not required to explain elementary kinetics.
>> I brace myself and angle my shield to deflect the boulders!
>
> Depends on the genre. I know several games in which this could occur.
Ken is taking for granted that the PC won't be supernatuarlly
strong.
And that's the big, honking problem with common sense. It ceases
to work correctly as soon as you venture away from average
individuals.
And since average individuals are criminally boring to play, it
follows that Common Sense(tm) is fundamentally an invalid GMing
method.
>>The DM is not required to explain common sense.
>> I block the ballista bolt with my shield.
>
> Same as above.
Yup. Sounds like Ken needs help getting rid of his ingrained
assumptions about what the PCs are.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Ken Andrews wrote:
> "Håvard Faanes" <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>>Ken Andrews wrote:
>>>The DM is not required to explain elementary kinetics.
>>> I brace myself and angle my shield to deflect the boulders!
>>
>>Depends on the genre. I know several games in which this could occur.
>
> Yes, and I know a couple of shields that will allow it as well. The rule is
> still valid.
The GM should make some kind of Strength-based roll, with the
difficulty set such that a non-supernaturally strong character
has a zero chance of succeeding, but a supernaturally strong
character might succeed.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
>>>to the fact that *everyone* wants to have fun; don't try to have
>>>fun at the expense of your gaming compatriots.
[Ian:]
>>Best one so far :)
Marc L. wrote:
> I second that.
I don't. Walking lightly, because one of the other players
*might* have sensibilities that are *intensely* *irrational*, is
stupid.
I create my character. Then I play him. If another player's
character has a problem with my character, then his character is
welcome to utilize in-game means to deal with my character.
However, if the *player* *himself* has a problem with my
character, then that is of no bigger importance than if the
Easter Bunny has a problem with my character (hint: both are
metagame entitites, and as such should have zero influence on
the events taking place in the game world).
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Håvard Faanes wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>Islam is a peaceful religion, just as long as the women are beaten, the boys
>>buggered and the infidels are killed.
>
> Is that your way of making the world more tolerant?
I've long wished for a *less* tolerant, *less* open-minded
world. Tolerance has been taken *way* too far, these last couple
of generations.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
hikaru wrote:
> Second- On my GM screen, I have my "!0 Commandments of Role Play" . they
> are as follows:
>
> Trav's Ten Commandments of Role-playing
>
> I: The Gamemaster is always right. Thou shalt not dispute his or her rulings
> in game.
The rules are always right. If the GM has a problem with the
rules, he is to modify the rules prior to the first session of
the campaign.
> II: Thou shalt not bitch, gripe, or complain, or verily bolts of lightening
> from on high shalt punish thy character.
Metagame.
> III: Thou shalt not use out of game knowledge in game. If thy character
> does not know something, thou must needs play accordingly. And verily,
> offering advice to, or accepting advice from, a fellow player whose
> character cannot speak with thy character is likewise a grievous offense.
Wrong. Sometimes, one player will remind another players of
something that this other player's characte realistically ought
to be aware of.
> IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them, respect
> thyself, respect the game.
If they deserve respect, yes. If they don't, you shouldn't game
with them.
> V: If thou shouldst betray thy fellow players and their characters, thou
> shalt have no place to petition the Gamemaster for mercy whence thy
> come-uppence is laid upon thee.
Also wrong. There is no such thing as betraying a player.
> VI: Save that thou art the Gamemaster, thou shalt not fudge thy die rolls,
So the GM is allowed to cheat, but the players aren't...
That's cowshit!
> lie about thy characters, or in any other way cheat at the game. If thou
Players are perfectly allowed to present their characters, to
the other player's characters, as something other than what they
really are.
For instance, in some worlds a Half-Elf could try to pass as
Human or Elf, socially.
(And here's a hint: That's not cheating)
> shouldst think about doing so, thou shouldst grow up already.
>
> VII: Thou shalt not screw with the Gamemaster.
I'd be favourably inclined towards this. If the GM establishes a
sexual relationship with a player during the campaign, that
player ought to leave.
If the relationship was a known fact before the campaign
started, then presumably people can deal with it.
> VIII: Thou shalt be on time for the game, fully prepared, with thy character
> sheet and thy dice. Thou shalt not unduly slow down the game.
Yes.
> VIV: Thou shalt not touch another players dice or miniatures without
> permission.
>
> X: Thou shalt remember always that this is a game. If thou art having fun,
> thou art winning.
The level of fun had in a roleplaying gaming campaign is
determined by the lowest common denominator. One player who
pollutes the purity of the game world with metagame influences,
one way or another, ruins the fun for the other players.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Charlton Wilbur
PK> However, if the *player* *himself* has a problem with my
PK> character, then that is of no bigger importance than if the
PK> Easter Bunny has a problem with my character (hint: both are
PK> metagame entitites, and as such should have zero influence on
PK> the events taking place in the game world).
Except that if the player himself has a problem with your choice of
character that is justifiable in the metagame, a metagame solution --
such as requiring you to create another character or ejecting you from
the game for tastelessness, with the assumption that your initial
character continues to exist in the world, is also an adequate
solution to the problem.
Ejecting you from the game has no effect on the character you created,
after all; metagame solutions for metagame problems. The connection
between you and the character you created is in the metagame, after all.
(And given some of the responses you've given in this thread --
principally, that you prioritize the purity of the game over the
players' emotional reactions to the game -- I'm surprised that anyone
that isn't himself a sociopath chooses to play in a game with you.)
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Terry Austin
news:Xns9551CA2C1E6CEma...@207.35.177.135:
I like it.
--
Terry Austin
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Campaign Cartographer Now Available
Chad Lubrecht
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>> h...@nvg.ntnu.no (Håvard Faanes) wrote in
>>>>nn. There's more than just you around the table - be considerate
>>>>to the fact that *everyone* wants to have fun; don't try to have
>>>>fun at the expense of your gaming compatriots.
>
>[Ian:]
>>>Best one so far :)
>
>Marc L. wrote:
>> I second that.
>
>I don't. Walking lightly, because one of the other players
>*might* have sensibilities that are *intensely* *irrational*, is
>stupid.
I think this has to depend on the group you play with. I assume there
must be some players out there who want the same thing from their
games as Peter does. They should get together and have fun. They
should be considerate to the fact that everyone of them wants to have
fun and not bring any metagaming into it by feeling uncomfortable or
offended.
Meanwhile, other players can also feel considerate for each other, and
avoid bringing topics to the game that make each other feel
uncomfortable.
Thus, by following the rule (be considerate), both groups can be
happy. If you find yourself in a game with the other group, your only
realy choice is to grit your teeth and put up with it, or leave the
game and find a like-minded group.
Brandon Cope
>
> Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
> forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
However, the GM should be willing to be flexible. The GM could also
allow the character on a provisional basis, letting the player know
that if the character seems to be a problem after a few adventures, a
new character will have to be created.
> Rule 2: People are three dimensional not two, so characters should be too.
This depends on the campaign; in a Toon campaign, a one-dimensional
character is probably acceptable, for example.
> Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise with the player.
Yes.
Brandon
Brandon Cope
> forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
However, the GM should be willing to be flexible. The GM could also
allow the character on a provisional basis, letting the player know
that if the character seems to be a problem after a few adventures, a
new character will have to be created.
> Rule 2: People are three dimensional not two, so characters should be too.
This depends on the campaign; in a Toon campaign, a one-dimensional
character is probably acceptable, for example.
> Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise with the player.
Yes.
Brandon
David Johnston
>
>> Rule 2: People are three dimensional not two, so characters should be too.
>
>This depends on the campaign; in a Toon campaign, a one-dimensional
>character is probably acceptable, for example.
It also depends on the people. I, for example, am two dimensional.
forumite
It's the players' game too.
The GM can be in error such that a player character benefits when he
rightly corrects the error.
The GM is not entitled to screw over player characters for the sake of
screwing them over.
A player character, within the established rules, is allowed to be
very good at something, also known as "powerful".
A player character with a maximum ability score is not sinful in his
most useful ability.
Gerald Katz
Silveraxe
>
> Second- On my GM screen, I have my "!0 Commandments of Role Play" . they
> are as follows:
>
> Trav's Ten Commandments of Role-playing
>
> I: The Gamemaster is always right. Thou shalt not dispute his or her rulings
> in game.
No. The rules are right.
I count on those rules to be true when I come for the game.
If he wants to change them, he'd better change them WAY ahead of when
they first come up and let me know about it. Then I'll be able to
count on his modified rules.
> II: Thou shalt not bitch, gripe, or complain, or verily bolts of lightening
> from on high shalt punish thy character.
This is valid in gaming just as much as it is in every other aspect of
life. Not more. You mean lightning will strike my character if I go
"Oh, damn, another 1"?
> III: Thou shalt not use out of game knowledge in game. If thy character
> does not know something, thou must needs play accordingly.
With this I agree.
> IIIb: And verily,
> offering advice to, or accepting advice from, a fellow player whose
> character cannot speak with thy character is likewise a grievous offense.
BS, I think. To qualify:
- if it's ingame information like "beyond that door is a big bad
monster," see above.
- If it's rules like "you forgot to add +1 for the bless you got
before you left" it's perfectly legit.
- if it's ingame info' that the character knows, but the player
forgets, it's OK. Player and character memory and intelligence are
often mismatched.
> IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them, respect
> thyself, respect the game.
Yeah ... ok ...
> VI: Save that thou art the Gamemaster, thou shalt not in any other way
> cheat at the game.
Whoa. This standard is so double, it's almost triple.
> VII: Thou shalt not screw with the Gamemaster.
Eh? Do you mean that literally? Odd ...
Or do you mean "trick" the gamemaster? Does this mean that the GM can
screw the players but they can't screw back?
> VIII: Thou shalt be on time for the game, fully prepared, with thy character
> sheet and thy dice. Thou shalt not unduly slow down the game.
Oh, yeah. Drop everything and play or not play at all.
Highly relaxing.
> VIV: Thou shalt not touch another players dice or miniatures without
> permission.
You mean move them during the game? Ok.
Or actually touching them while they're lying unused at the player's
side. BS.
You sound like a little tyrant.
Silveraxe.
Marc L.
@uni-berlin.de:
>> I second that.
>
> I don't. Walking lightly, because one of the other players
> *might* have sensibilities that are *intensely* *irrational*, is
> stupid.
>
Excuse me, but where did you get that from what he wrote? And,
what do you find stupid about respecting those you play with? Do you
think of role playing as a competition? Or as a social interaction?
Marc L.
>> lie about thy characters, or in any other way cheat at the game.
>> If thou
>
> Players are perfectly allowed to present their characters, to
> the other player's characters, as something other than what they
> really are.
>
Except where "lie about thy character" means lying to the GM
about your character's abilities.
Marc L.
news:Xns9551D2267853Bta...@216.168.3.50:
>>> Superstition is for stupid people.
>>>
>>
>> "It is bad luck to be superstitious."
>>
> I like it.
>
>
*grin*
Travis Casey
> III: Thou shalt not use out of game knowledge in game. If thy character
> does not know something, thou must needs play accordingly. And verily,
> offering advice to, or accepting advice from, a fellow player whose
> character cannot speak with thy character is likewise a grievous offense.
I'll take exception to this one. Using out-of-game knowledge for your own
character's advantage is a bad thing, yes -- but using it in other ways can
be a good thing. To give some examples:
A couple of days ago, I was playing in a campaign with a strong comedy
element. My character and another character were both in a restaurant,
looking for each other. We agreed (yes, talking to each other out of
character) that it would be funny if our characters barely missed each
other a couple of times before running into each other -- and so we
arranged things so that they did, describing it in a comedic way. It's a
standard comedy element, and it amused the GM and the other players... but
we couldn't have done it without metagaming.
One time I was playing in a Buffy game, playing Ginny, a budding young witch
who was one of the very non-combat-oriented characters... and who also
liked to tease the guys. The characters were having to jump down a shaft
in a mine onto an elevator that had already started going down. The GM
called for Acrobatics rolls to see if we could do it.
When it came my turn, I had a choice -- was I going to spend a Drama Point
on doing this or not? If I spent one, I knew I'd almost certainly
succeed... and I also knew that if I didn't, I'd almost certainly fail.
The "smart" thing to do would've been to spend one... but my metagame
knowledge told me that the GM wasn't going to let me die from one flubbed
roll when we hadn't really gotten into the action yet... and that having
Ginny limping around with a twisted ankle or other minor injury, leaning on
the guys and having to rely on them to save her even more when we got into
combat, would be fun for me and the other players. So I didn't spend the
Drama Point, and, as I expected, the GM said Ginny was hurt. I said, "Can
it be a twisted ankle?" and he said, "Sure." And indeed, I and the other
players did have fun with it for the rest of that adventure.
Lastly, remember that the separation of character knowledge and player
knowledge is a two-way thing -- characters don't know everything that
players do, but *players don't know everything characters do either*. I
regularly allow a player whose *character* is supposed to be an expert on
something, but the player him/herself isn't, to get advice from others when
the character is planning something regarding that field, whether the other
players' characters are there or not. E.g., not that long ago, a woman in
a campaign I was running was playing a high-level thief -- but she herself
was a fairly new gamer, and had picked thief because it sounded neat and
the party needed one -- not because she had any idea how to play one.
Thus, I allowed the rest of the group to advise her, since while her
*character* should know perfectly well how to use his skills to best
advantage, the *player* didn't.
> X: Thou shalt remember always that this is a game. If thou art having fun,
> thou art winning.
Yep. My own #1 rule would be:
There are lots of ways to play RPGs. If everyone in the group is having
fun, then you're not doing it wrong.
--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Leszek Karlik
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
> I've long wished for a *less* tolerant, *less* open-minded
> world. Tolerance has been taken *way* too far, these last couple
> of generations.
Hm. That does explain a lot.
> Peter Knutsen
Leslie
--
Sol-Earthsa Leszek Leslie Karlik dam Posen; leslie @ ideefixe . pl
Drone, Offensive; Special Circumstances, Contact Section.
GH/L/S/O d- s+:- a26 C++ UL+ P L++ E W-() N+++* K w(---) M- PS+(+++) PE
Y+ PGP++ !t---(++) 5++ X- R+++*>$ !tv b++++ DI+ D--- G-- e>+ h- r% y+*
Dr. Rich Staats
> there. Someone was whining about not being allowed to do something they wanted
> to do, because they were a role-player, and it would take forever to get to the
> point they'd be allowed to do it, even though they were given a ROLE-PLAYING
> reason why it was so. Made me want to whack 'em.
>
>
> What else should we add?
>
Take a peek at the URL below, it has some fundemental rules of role-playing / GMing:
http://werple.net.au/~tosh/tips/gmprinciples.htm
more stuff at:
http://www.geocities.com/dr_games/staats2.htm
In service,
Rich
David Klassen
> hikaru wrote:
> > Second- On my GM screen, I have my "!0 Commandments of Role Play" . they
> > are as follows:
> >
> > Trav's Ten Commandments of Role-playing
> >
> > I: The Gamemaster is always right. Thou shalt not dispute his or her rulings
> > in game.
>
> The rules are always right. If the GM has a problem with the
> rules, he is to modify the rules prior to the first session of
> the campaign.
Or modify the rules when they come up and are determined to be
ineffective/distasteful. The GM is not required to have scrutinized
every rule and its posible use before the first session of what could
be a years long campaign.
> > VI: Save that thou art the Gamemaster, thou shalt not fudge thy die rolls,
>
> So the GM is allowed to cheat,
Yes. It's called "adjusting the parameters to fit the situation". If the
goal is to provide a suitable challenge for the players and enhance their
enjoyment, this is perfectly acceptible. If I design an encounter, and
it turns out to be fundamentally too easy or too hard, I change it.
Right then and there---no player consulation involved or needed.
> but the players aren't...
Correct.
> That's cowshit!
Bah.
> > lie about thy characters, or in any other way cheat at the game. If thou
>
> Players are perfectly allowed to present their characters, to
> the other player's characters, as something other than what they
> really are.
But they are not allowed to present their abilities as something other
than they are to the GM when meta-information is asked for.
> For instance, in some worlds a Half-Elf could try to pass as
> Human or Elf, socially.
>
> (And here's a hint: That's not cheating)
Agreed. That's role-playing.
Ken Andrews
>
> > Ken Andrews wrote:
> >>The DM is not required to explain elementary kinetics.
> >> I brace myself and angle my shield to deflect the boulders!
> >
> > Depends on the genre. I know several games in which this could occur.
>
> Ken is taking for granted that the PC won't be supernatuarlly
> strong.
No, I'm taking for granted that people recognize the idea of a "general"
rule. There are shields in 2nd ed D&D that would have allowed this to be
done; it doesn't invalidate the rule.
> And that's the big, honking problem with common sense. It ceases
> to work correctly as soon as you venture away from average
> individuals.
Also incorrect. Superman still has weaknesses.
> And since average individuals are criminally boring to play, it
> follows that Common Sense(tm) is fundamentally an invalid GMing
> method.
>
> >>The DM is not required to explain common sense.
> >> I block the ballista bolt with my shield.
> >
> > Same as above.
>
> Yup. Sounds like Ken needs help getting rid of his ingrained
> assumptions about what the PCs are.
Sorry, incorrect. Ken has made no assumptions, you have.
The original for number 2 above was not shield / ballista bolt. It was
spaceship / spaceship with the two impacting at 40 kilometres per second
closing speed and the pilot of one asking if he survived.
Common sense is common sense, whether it's trying to stop an artillery shell
with a piece of tissue paper or stop an asteroid with a sheet of steel.
It doesn't matter how supernaturally strong the PCs are, there is *always*
something that is so totally impossible to stop that the question of "do I
survive" becomes ridiculous.
A Strength 50 character is (rather obviously) supernaturally strong. If he
says "I try to catch the falling flying castle", I (under 2nd ed) would
simply rule him dead. Under 3rd ed, I'll give him a DC 200 chance. If he
fails, I'll rule him dead.
Kevin Lowe
kla...@rowan.edu (David Klassen) wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<2p7ip1F...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > The rules are always right. If the GM has a problem with the
> > rules, he is to modify the rules prior to the first session of
> > the campaign.
>
> Or modify the rules when they come up and are determined to be
> ineffective/distasteful. The GM is not required to have scrutinized
> every rule and its posible use before the first session of what could
> be a years long campaign.
That's the job of the group as a whole, not the GM.
> > > VI: Save that thou art the Gamemaster, thou shalt not fudge thy die
> > > rolls,
> >
> > So the GM is allowed to cheat,
>
> Yes. It's called "adjusting the parameters to fit the situation". If the
> goal is to provide a suitable challenge for the players and enhance their
> enjoyment, this is perfectly acceptible. If I design an encounter, and
> it turns out to be fundamentally too easy or too hard, I change it.
> Right then and there---no player consulation involved or needed.
It is not your place to do so. You should admit that you screwed up,
and then ask the group what they think you should do about it.
GMs who "adjust the parameters to fit the situation" in a
mechanics-heavy game like DnD are guilty of wasting my valuable time.
If you aren't up to running a mechanics-heavy game competently then run
a mechanics-light game. Don't pretend to run DnD - either run it, or
run something like RISIS or On The Edge where you can fudge to your
heart's content.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Theodore Jay Miller
> The DM is not required to explain elementary kinetics.
> I brace myself and angle my shield to deflect the boulders!
>
> I block the ballista bolt with my shield.
>
> descriptions.
> (While in Hell): I'm casting Gate. Which God? I don't care! Just
> one at random.
>
> The DM is not required to explain common politeness.
> I tell the old fart to get out of the way.
>
> The DM is not required to explain the difference between you believing
> and gravity believing.
> I believe in my illusory bridge, so it'll support me.
>
> The DM is not required to explain Law.
> (Middle of the afternoon, busy London street): I kill the beggar.
>
> The DM is not required to explain RHIP.
> The Prince pushed me out of the way?!? Nobody does that to me!
>
> The DM is not required to prevent the PC's suicide.
> (From a L4 Fighter on a ledge 60' above): I'll jump down on the
> Beholder's top and stab him.
I think the ones I quoted are cases where the DM SHOULD
explain it, since they're mismatches between the player's
knowledge and the character's knowledge of how the game
world and the society work. The character is a trained
fighter or mage or whatever, lives in that society, and
would have an idea what is or isn't possible, what is
or isn't acceptable. If the player is thinking in terms
of a different type of fictional world, where over-the-top
stunts are possible or where that behavior is reasonable
and so on, then it's part of the DM's job to let the
player know what his character would know about what the
fictional world of the game is actually like.
Thom Jeffries
>
> So, I was thinking. What are the basic, fundamental rules of role-playing?
> Not game specific, and not mechanics.
>
> I was thinking along the lines of:
> Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
> forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
For a group of random individuals gaming together, this is a good rule.
If the group has been together some time or already knows each other well
enough, then there should be no problems bringing up in-game details/
mechanics/etc. with the GM in an effort to better the game for everyone.
Of course, the GM still has the in-game Rule 0 during the session, and
the right to tell everybody that certain details are off-limits because
they're important to the campaign.
> Rule 2: People are three dimensional not two, so characters should be too.
In games I GM, people never seem to deviate too far from their norm.
When I game, I have Force-sensitive, mechanical-armed gamblers mull
over setting explosives in Empire-controlled habitation zones (full
of civilians no less) just to attract the attention of the local
Rebellion members that I need to find. The GM was thrilled that he
was going to get to roleplay my shift towards the Dark Side, but the
rest of the group found another way to get in touch with them. Bah.
> Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise
> with the player.
Sure, but most conflicts should be sorted out ahead of time with a
campaign cheat-sheet with all house rules, world info, etc. It should
definitely include such things as PC death and item appropriation/creation,
as these are the usual stumbling blocks between players and GM's in-game
Rule 0. The player may not like it that the ninja took off his head and the
rest of the party ran screaming and now there's no chance of resurrection.
The player may not like it that they can't make a sword that casts lightning
bolt everytime they strike a foe without paying through the nose for it.
But so long as the player knew that the in-game Rule 0 is law, and that
the out-of-game rules are right there on-hand and were reviewed at the start
of the campaign, then there shouldn't be any false expectations. Grumbling,
sure. False expectations, no.
> Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without serious
> consideration of consequences.
The neutrals get to me the most. "Let's not worry about the townspeople.
We're saving the world, so letting a town get crisped by the dragon balances
out the good we're doing! Cool! We're SOOOO neutral!"
Ugh.
> What else should we add?
I would propose a Rule 0 for the metagame. It'd be one of two I guess,
depending on the campaign/GM/players.
Metagame Rule 0 (version 1): We are here to have fun. If someone is not
having fun for any reason, it needs to be sorted out and not allowed to
run rampant. The GM will make a good effort to match the game style to
the players, but has the right to branch out into different game styles
to allow everyone the chance to experience more than just the current
style. The players will give the GM feedback on what they like and
dislike so as to better the experience for everyone.
Metagame Rule 0 (version 2): We are here to tell a coherent, consistent
story. If we're not telling a good story for any reason, it needs to be
sorted out and not allowed to run rampant. The GM will make a good effort
to construct a consistent world and will enforce a consistent set of rules,
but has the right of the in-game Rule 0 to settle conflicts that may arise.
The players will follow the lead of the GM's play style/campaign tone/etc.
and help construct the coherent story that is to be told.
Of course most campaigns follow both Metagame Rule 0's. But from time
to time, it's necessary to choose one over the other in the group. Knowing
upfront which takes precedence is a good thing for GM and players alike.
--
Thom Jeffries
David Johnston
wrote:
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in news:2p7i98Fhh2c1U3
>@uni-berlin.de:
>
>>> I second that.
>>
>> I don't. Walking lightly, because one of the other players
>> *might* have sensibilities that are *intensely* *irrational*, is
>> stupid.
>>
>
> Excuse me, but where did you get that from what he wrote? And,
>what do you find stupid about respecting those you play with?
He finds respecting people to be stupid in general.
Charlton Wilbur
h> I: The Gamemaster is always right. Thou shalt not dispute his
h> or her rulings in game.
The GM is *not* always right -- many GMs make quite a few mistakes --
but arguing over a ruling in game is usually far worse than accepting
a wrong ruling and taking it up later.
h> VIII: Thou shalt be on time for the game, fully prepared, with
h> thy character sheet and thy dice. Thou shalt not unduly slow
h> down the game.
My rule in college was that by playing in a game, you were committing
to one four-hour block of time a week. Skipping without warning was
grounds for being booted from the game permanently, but letting me
know ahead of time was fine. This worked because there were many more
players that wanted to play than spots in a game.
There were two problems that I had in this in about three years of the
policy. One was a friend; he spent Friday night playing foosball,
Saturday afternoon playing volleyball, Saturday night watching movies,
Sunday afternoon playing Magic, Sunday night watching movies, Monday
in classes, and suddenly on Monday night when it came time for game he
had a paper that was due on Tuesday. So I pointed out his activities
of the weekend and suggested that if he wanted to continue playing in
the game he ought to work on his time management skills.
The other was one game, which was supposed to start at 7 on Tuesdays,
where I found myself chasing down 3 of the 5 players to remind them
that yes, it was Tuesday, and yes, we were supposed to be gaming, yes,
*every* Tuesday, yes, it is that time already. After the fourth week
of that, I told them that if they really wanted to play in the game
they were welcome to get together on Tuesday nights and come find me
when they were all assembled. About a month later, the worst offender
asked me what happened to the game.
Punctuality is nice, but I don't expect it. Showing up, or giving
advance notice that you can't make it or a damned good reason after
the fact is an absolute requirement.
h> VIV: Thou shalt not touch another players dice or miniatures
h> without permission.
Miniatures I can see. All of the games I have ever played in that
used miniatures for combat had the rule that only the player and the
GM moved the player's miniature except by specific and detailed
request. Otherwise the locations of the miniatures on the mat can't
be trusted, and that defeats the purpose.
As far as dice go, I think that's mostly superstition, but I don't
have a problem with a rule like "ask before you touch other people's
stuff."
Doug Lampert
> (And given some of the responses you've given in this thread --
> principally, that you prioritize the purity of the game over the
> players' emotional reactions to the game -- I'm surprised that anyone
> that isn't himself a sociopath chooses to play in a game with you.)
Prizing purity of the game over emotional reactions to the game is
perfectly rational IF you accept the premise that in the long run
a pure game is more satisfying than an impure one. I largly agree
with this premise; so it is a simple matter of long term gain for
a minor short term pain.
Now, that said: What character you play is almost pure metagame,
so picking a character that plays well with others is painless in
terms of this long term value, and picking one that does not courts
long term problems. An initial discussion of setting, characters,
and character types prior to the start of a campaign strikes me
as mandatory for a good game. And players should make a real effort
to make characters that will work for the setting, for all the
other players, and have some reason to work with the other
characters.
DougL
Firelock
> So, I was thinking. What are the basic, fundamental rules of role-playing?
> Not game specific, and not mechanics.
"When all else fails, hit it with a stick." You'd be surprised
at the near-universal applicability of this axiom. Much in the
same way "Flesh to Stone" is the spell for all seasons.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Doug Lampert
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<2p7ip1F...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > hikaru wrote:
> > > VI: Save that thou art the Gamemaster, thou shalt not fudge thy die rolls,
> >
> > So the GM is allowed to cheat,
>
> Yes. It's called "adjusting the parameters to fit the situation". If the
> goal is to provide a suitable challenge for the players and enhance their
> enjoyment, this is perfectly acceptible. If I design an encounter, and
> it turns out to be fundamentally too easy or too hard, I change it.
> Right then and there---no player consulation involved or needed.
If that is the goal. This is one of the things I make sure to discuss
prior to the start of the campaign. IME in a long campaign you can
NEVER hide the fact that you are fudging/making adjustments on the fly
from an awake player, so there is no gain at all in trying to hide
wether or not you will do such things. (There are good reasons to hide
any particular instance.)
In point of fact IME if done with any frequency such adjusting the
parameters on the fly tends to result in characters acting suboptimally
because optimal action just results in tougher competition.
DougL
Firelock
> Ubiquitous wrote:
> >Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
> >forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
> >Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise with
> >the player.
>
It is also in direct opposition to his stated Rule #1. ;-)
Firelock
> determined by the lowest common denominator. One player who
> pollutes the purity of the game world with metagame influences,
> one way or another, ruins the fun for the other players.
You seem to have put a lot of thought into how easy it
is to ruin your gaming experience. Do you still play, or
have you given up by now?
No 33 Secretary
news:d98390c0.04082...@posting.google.com:
> Much in the
> same way "Flesh to Stone" is the spell for all seasons.
>
We had a lot of fun with Metal To Rubber. There was a village with a Rubber
Golem as mayor.
(There was a Metal to Water spell, too. Got interesting when it was cast on
a drawbridge that was made of +10 Mithril. Ended up with a +10 Mithril
Moat.)
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Ian R Malcomson
>>>>to the fact that *everyone* wants to have fun; don't try to have
>>>>fun at the expense of your gaming compatriots.
>
>[Ian:]
>>>Best one so far :)
>
>Marc L. wrote:
>
>I don't. Walking lightly, because one of the other players *might* have
>sensibilities that are *intensely* *irrational*, is stupid.
Well, if you will insist on playing with psychopaths...
There's no accounting for irrationality. No rule or guideline can
account for irrationality. Steer clear of the irrational.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Charlton Wilbur
f> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
f> news:<2p7ip1F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> The level of fun had in a roleplaying gaming campaign is
>> determined by the lowest common denominator. One player who
>> pollutes the purity of the game world with metagame influences,
>> one way or another, ruins the fun for the other players.
f> You seem to have put a lot of thought into how easy it is to
f> ruin your gaming experience. Do you still play, or have you
f> given up by now?
Well, given how strident and unpleasant he is with anyone who doesn't
have the exact same viewpoint he does....
....my suspicion is that he is on the cutting edge of games that are
not designed to be played, but to be bickered over endlessly.
David Johnston
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> writes
>>
>>> h...@nvg.ntnu.no (Håvard Faanes) wrote in
>>>>>nn. There's more than just you around the table - be considerate
>>>>>to the fact that *everyone* wants to have fun; don't try to have
>>>>>fun at the expense of your gaming compatriots.
>>
>>[Ian:]
>>>>Best one so far :)
>>
>>Marc L. wrote:
>>> I second that.
>>
>>I don't. Walking lightly, because one of the other players *might* have
>>sensibilities that are *intensely* *irrational*, is stupid.
>
>Well, if you will insist on playing with psychopaths...
Psychopaths are not the same thing as self centered jerks.
David Meadows
news:cgkhk2$j8s$2...@news.utelfla.com...
[...]
> So, I was thinking. What are the basic, fundamental rules of role-playing?
> Not game specific, and not mechanics.
> Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without serious
consideration of consequences.
Alignment does not exist in any system I run these days. So I think that one
is game-specific/mechanics.
--
David Meadows
"We're like a poorly-oiled machine teetering on the brink
of a breakdown." -- Fred, Heroes #19
Heroes: a comic book www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts
Dan Childers
> > I block the ballista bolt with my shield.
> >
> > and gravity believing.
> > I believe in my illusory bridge, so it'll support me.
> >
> explain it, since they're mismatches between the player's
> knowledge and the character's knowledge of how the game
> world and the society work. The character is a trained
> fighter or mage or whatever, lives in that society, and
> would have an idea what is or isn't possible, what is
> or isn't acceptable. If the player is thinking in terms
> of a different type of fictional world, where over-the-top
> stunts are possible or where that behavior is reasonable
> and so on, then it's part of the DM's job to let the
> player know what his character would know about what the
> fictional world of the game is actually like.
>
Even aside from genre assumption mismatches:
the player, being an early 21st century Westerner,
has probably never seen a ballista fire; and has
certainly never cast an illusion spell. Thus, he
might not know "a ballista bolt will go right
through an ordinary shield", though his character
might. If in your campaign a caster *can't* believe
in his illusion (sounds reasonable enough--he knows
that he cast an illusion spell, not a bridge spell),
--again, the player might not know this, but
the character probably would.
However, if the DM says, "Er, Bob the Barbarian knows
that a ballista bolt will go right through that
shield," and the player insists on doing it anyway...
well, the player is in charge, not Bob.
Dan Childers
He's reacting to a thread in other groups, where most
posters are arguing that the GM should avoid topics
that upset players, and that rape in particular is
a topic that is *likely* to upset players. His
position is that this is an irrational reaction on
the part of the player, and in fact that an implicit
agreement that PCs shall not be raped makes suspension
of disbelief impossible.
I may be making his position sound more reasonable
than it is.
Malachias Invictus
"Håvard Faanes" <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:slrncisjn...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no...
> Ken Andrews wrote:
> >The DM is not required to force players to read their spells'
> >descriptions.
> > (While in Hell): I'm casting Gate. Which God? I don't care! Just
> >one at random.
>
> Different gaming styles. I bet Rules Lawyers love this style of gaming. I
> sure don't.
You don't like a style of gaming where GMs expect spellcasters to have read
the descriptions of the spells they are casting?
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Arthur Boff
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>However, if the *player* *himself* has a problem with my
>character, then that is of no bigger importance than if the
>Easter Bunny has a problem with my character (hint: both are
>metagame entitites, and as such should have zero influence on
>the events taking place in the game world).
But the GM and all the players are metagame entities. Does this mean
they should have no influence on what happens in the game world?
(Hint: if you go down this route, you end up just sitting there,
staring at your character sheets, waiting for your characters to
spontaneously go do something of their own accord. Which won't happen,
due to them being fictional entities.)
--
You know the rules. You can not buy an eight foot tall crime fighting
robot unless you are a law enforcement officer!!!
- Pokey the Penguin.
Peter Knutsen
Doug Lampert wrote:
> Prizing purity of the game over emotional reactions to the game is
> perfectly rational IF you accept the premise that in the long run
> a pure game is more satisfying than an impure one. I largly agree
> with this premise; so it is a simple matter of long term gain for
> a minor short term pain.
>
> Now, that said: What character you play is almost pure metagame,
Yes. Or another way of putting it is that the term metagame has
no meaning during the character creation phase. Either way,
there are no purity issues, except for players who want to
create characters that can't exist in the game world.
> so picking a character that plays well with others is painless in
> terms of this long term value, and picking one that does not courts
> long term problems. An initial discussion of setting, characters,
> and character types prior to the start of a campaign strikes me
> as mandatory for a good game. And players should make a real effort
> to make characters that will work for the setting, for all the
> other players, and have some reason to work with the other
> characters.
Yes to all of that, with a disclaimer:
The only problem with such requirements is that they may
restrict the character concept choices of the player to an
unreasonable degree. For instance, if the players are all to
create characters from the same tiny village, out on the
frontier far from civilization, then a player who wants to make
a mage-concept character is screwed.
So there's a limit to how strict such requirements can be, and
it's very easy to hit it...
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Arthur Boff wrote:
> <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>However, if the *player* *himself* has a problem with my
>>character, then that is of no bigger importance than if the
>>Easter Bunny has a problem with my character (hint: both are
>>metagame entitites, and as such should have zero influence on
>>the events taking place in the game world).
>
> But the GM and all the players are metagame entities. Does this mean
Correct. They don't exist.
> they should have no influence on what happens in the game world?
Their opinions should have no influence on what happens in the
game world, in the exact same world as the opinions of
game-world characters should have no influence on what happens
in the real world.
> (Hint: if you go down this route, you end up just sitting there,
No I don't.
> staring at your character sheets, waiting for your characters to
No I don't. I'm a roleplayer.
> spontaneously go do something of their own accord. Which won't happen,
> due to them being fictional entities.)
But you're wrong. They will spontaneously start doing something,
provided they were created by actual roleplayers, and that they
exist in a world created by a competent GM.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Arthur Boff
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>The only problem with such requirements is that they may
>restrict the character concept choices of the player to an
>unreasonable degree. For instance, if the players are all to
>create characters from the same tiny village, out on the
>frontier far from civilization, then a player who wants to make
>a mage-concept character is screwed.
Only if his enjoyment hinges on being able to play a character who is
not from the village. And that's a funny thing to have your enjoyment
depend upon.
--
I cannot believe the insolence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The general asked
you a direct question!!!!!!!!! All you do is make jokes and threaten
rape.
- Jerkcity.
Arthur Boff
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> But the GM and all the players are metagame entities. Does this mean
>
>Correct. They don't exist.
IC, they don't, yes.
>> they should have no influence on what happens in the game world?
>
>Their opinions should have no influence on what happens in the
>game world, in the exact same world as the opinions of
>game-world characters should have no influence on what happens
>in the real world.
Wot?
But surely all we're dealing with is players' opinions of what their
characters are like and think?
>> (Hint: if you go down this route, you end up just sitting there,
>
>No I don't.
>
>> staring at your character sheets, waiting for your characters to
>
>No I don't. I'm a roleplayer.
>
>> spontaneously go do something of their own accord. Which won't happen,
>> due to them being fictional entities.)
>
>But you're wrong. They will spontaneously start doing something,
>provided they were created by actual roleplayers, and that they
>exist in a world created by a competent GM.
So hold on, are you saying that in a sufficiently well-designed world
and with a suitably designed character, you find the characters
spontaneously doing stuff without any input from you?
That's incredible. Or possibly scary. I'd go for scary, especially
given your opinions on rape.
--
The eyes that light The Land of Laughs
See you and wink their thanks.
- Marshall France.
David Johnston
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>Yes to all of that, with a disclaimer:
>
>The only problem with such requirements is that they may
>restrict the character concept choices of the player to an
>unreasonable degree. For instance, if the players are all to
>create characters from the same tiny village, out on the
>frontier far from civilization, then a player who wants to make
>a mage-concept character is screwed.
I don't know about you, but I can and have made a mage-concept
character who came from a tiny village out on a frontier far
from civilisation.
Christopher Adams
>
> However "acting in character" does exist in all RPGs and it can
> be taken to crippling extremes. Some of the most problematic
> players I have ever encountered are the ones who think that
> any and all behaviours are justified by "That's what my character
> believes/wants to do" even though they are primarily responsible
> for their characters beliefs and motives.
This is true, and it doesn't even have to be anything more troublesome than
"She's not interested in helping you with this."
True, the character may not be interested, but the problem (at least in the
specific example I'm thinking of, and I would guess quite often) is that you
didn't *have* to create a character who would have those opinions.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
Christopher Adams
> Ubiquitous wrote ...
>
>> Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without serious
>> consideration of consequences.
>
> The neutrals get to me the most. "Let's not worry about the townspeople.
> We're saving the world, so letting a town get crisped by the dragon
> balances out the good we're doing! Cool! We're SOOOO neutral!"
>
> Ugh.
Did you play with idiots?
Peter Knutsen
There are worlds where that won't work. Especially if you
interpret "mage" as being somewhat scholarly, and starting the
game with a versatile array of magical skills.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
David Johnston
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>David Johnston wrote:
>> <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>>Yes to all of that, with a disclaimer:
>>>
>>>The only problem with such requirements is that they may
>>>restrict the character concept choices of the player to an
>>>unreasonable degree. For instance, if the players are all to
>>>create characters from the same tiny village, out on the
>>>frontier far from civilization, then a player who wants to make
>>>a mage-concept character is screwed.
>>
>> I don't know about you, but I can and have made a mage-concept
>> character who came from a tiny village out on a frontier far
>> from civilisation.
>
>There are worlds where that won't work.
Not a lot.
Especially if you
>interpret "mage" as being somewhat scholarly, and starting the
>game with a versatile array of magical skills.
He was indeed "somewhat" scholarly, although virtually inventing magic
from scratch meant that he started out as considerably less than
versatile. But he had boundless potential...
The thing is, if you can't think of a character you want to
play that would fit into the campaign the answer is simple.
Don't play. Now if you have enough "imagination" the
odds are good that you can think of a character you'd like
to play for any given setup. If someone can't, that's probably
because they are set on having their own way to the
point that they just might be a PITA.
forumite
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message news:<871xhte...@mithril.chromatico.net>...
>
> perfectly rational IF you accept the premise that in the long run
> a pure game is more satisfying than an impure one. I largly agree
> with this premise; so it is a simple matter of long term gain for
> a minor short term pain.
>
> Now, that said: What character you play is almost pure metagame,
> so picking a character that plays well with others is painless in
> terms of this long term value, and picking one that does not courts
> long term problems. An initial discussion of setting, characters,
> and character types prior to the start of a campaign strikes me
> as mandatory for a good game. And players should make a real effort
> to make characters that will work for the setting, for all the
> other players, and have some reason to work with the other
> characters.
>
> DougL
Heh.
I'm reminded of a camapign I was in a few years ago. With the
exception of one or two Neutrals, everyone was Good. I was playing a
paladin, and there was also a ranger in the party. A new player
wanted to join the group. He knew there was a paladin and ranger in
the party. He decided to play a cleric, who while himself was
neutral, his goddess was Evil with the portfolio of disease and
poison, and his mission was certainly not to cure the world of such
afflictions. His character was never welcomed into the party. The
player was welcomed to create a different character, but he declined.
Gerald Katz
Douglas Berry
was pushed over the cliffs of rec.games.frp.misc on Sat, 28 Aug 2004
02:57:37 +0200 by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
>The only problem with such requirements is that they may
>restrict the character concept choices of the player to an
>unreasonable degree. For instance, if the players are all to
>create characters from the same tiny village, out on the
>frontier far from civilization, then a player who wants to make
>a mage-concept character is screwed.
Not really...
1. The character is a Sorceror, and comes by magic naturally.
2. The character was trained by the local hedge wizard. He wasn't
much, but the character has potential.
3. The character has been recovering from wounds in the village, or
had to winter there.. staying long enough to have become part of the
community.
There, three stories for a mage-concept from a small village.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
forumite
> "Håvard Faanes" <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote in message
> news:slrncisjn...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no...
> > Ken Andrews wrote:
>
> > >The DM is not required to force players to read their spells'
> > >descriptions.
> > > (While in Hell): I'm casting Gate. Which God? I don't care! Just
> > >one at random.
> >
> > Different gaming styles. I bet Rules Lawyers love this style of gaming. I
> > sure don't.
>
> You don't like a style of gaming where GMs expect spellcasters to have read
> the descriptions of the spells they are casting?
>
> --
> ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
>
It is considered wrong for players to use knowledge their characters
don't know about to affect what they're character do or don't do.
However, the reverse is also true. There can be instances where a
player does not know something but his character by all rights should
know. A spellcaster using his spells is among them. It is quite
possible for a player to not have the time to memorize every single
spell in the player's handbook. There are more important bits of
information in real life for a player to want and need to have
knowledge of. How a particular spell works for the game is not among
them. Hopefully as the game progresses the player will remember his
more common used spells by mere fact of familiarity, but depending
upon how often a particular cmapaign is played, familiarity time
varies.
Gerald Katz
First Prophet of Kaos
(Ubiquitous) wrote:
>Ok, so I've been lurking on a gaming forum and want to slap all the posters
>there. Someone was whining about not being allowed to do something they wanted
>to do, because they were a role-player, and it would take forever to get to the
>point they'd be allowed to do it, even though they were given a ROLE-PLAYING
>reason why it was so. Made me want to whack 'em.
>
>So, I was thinking. What are the basic, fundamental rules of role-playing?
>Not game specific, and not mechanics.
>
>I was thinking along the lines of:
>
>Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
>forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
Troll O Meter
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
___________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------
^
|
Debunked countless times since I arrived here, and likely countless
times before. You should know better.
>Rule 2: People are three dimensional not two, so characters should be too.
There are sufficient examples of folks who behave fundamentally
identical to two-dimensional characters in the real world to reveal
Rule 2 as gross overgeneralization. You can meet a number of them
just by strolling over to edm.general, if your server carries it.
>Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise with the player.
Presumes the existence of a DM or GM, which is a system artifact. It
also presumes sufficient authority in that role to make this relevant.
While such patters are highly useful and common artifacts, they are
not universal enough to justify this as a *fundamental* rule.
>Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without serious consideration of consequences.
This strays into game and/or mechanic discussion, as some systems pay
no attention to the concept of alignment to begin with. Some that use
analogous systems (VtM's 'humanity' mechanics, for example) justify
more extreme measures to properly portray the thematic elements that
it is meant to highlight: if corruption of the soul is a thematic
factor, it should be easier to slide towards "evil" than when triumph
of the heroes is the desired tone.
>What else should we add?
There is only one rule necessary: know your group and their
expectations before making decisions, save at conventions.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
First Prophet of Kaos
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>> h...@nvg.ntnu.no (Håvard Faanes) wrote in
>>>>nn. There's more than just you around the table - be considerate
>>>>to the fact that *everyone* wants to have fun; don't try to have
>>>>fun at the expense of your gaming compatriots.
>
>[Ian:]
>>>Best one so far :)
>
>Marc L. wrote:
>> I second that.
>
>I don't. Walking lightly, because one of the other players
>*might* have sensibilities that are *intensely* *irrational*, is
>stupid.
The rule is valid, it is your understanding of it's consequences that
is not.
Presuming the majority feels as you do, said 'intensely irrational'
individual is the one in violation: he's fucking with your game by
foisting his emotional baggage apon your game, when the sensible
response is for him to wake up and realize that he doesn't belong in
that group.
If you are the exception, then it is you who needs to wake up and find
a different group.
First Prophet of Kaos
<taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote in
>news:--qdnZMQ2N-...@rfci.net:
<snip>
>> IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them, respect
>> thyself, respect the game.
>
>Heh. Yeah. That's gonna happen.
If you've got the right group, the second sentence goes without
saying. If not, then you should find another group.
The first bit is twitchy, because it is highly disrespectful to be
inappropriately polite.
David Meadows
news:2pa3j5F...@uni-berlin.de...
But limits on what character concepts are available is one of the core
elements that define the game world. If you can't create a character within
those limits, you're in the wrong game.
Rupert Boleyn
<ka...@ecn.ab.ca> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> >Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
> >forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
> >Rule 3: The DM should be flexible enough to reach a compromise with the player.
>
> Presumes the existence of a DM or GM, which is a system artifact. It
> also presumes sufficient authority in that role to make this relevant.
> While such patters are highly useful and common artifacts, they are
> not universal enough to justify this as a *fundamental* rule.
Also, contradictory with rule 1.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Terry Austin
news:6g70j0p9r00u72fjq...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:59:44 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote in
>>news:--qdnZMQ2N-...@rfci.net:
> <snip>
>>> IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them, respect
>>> thyself, respect the game.
>>
>>Heh. Yeah. That's gonna happen.
>
> If you've got the right group, the second sentence goes without
> saying.
How boring.
> If not, then you should find another group.
I think otherwise. So do the people I game with.
>
> The first bit is twitchy, because it is highly disrespectful to be
> inappropriately polite.
>
Respect is earned. That is the only way it can be gotten. Anything given,
but not earned, is not respect.
--
Terry Austin
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Campaign Cartographer Now Available
David Meadows
news:o160j0dsq6m86akh4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:30:10 +0000 (UTC), web...@polaris.net
> (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>
> >
> >Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
> >forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
>
> Troll O Meter
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
> ___________________________________________________
> | | | | | | | | | | |
> ---------------------------------------------------
> ^
> |
>
> Debunked countless times since I arrived here, and likely countless
> times before. You should know better.
Are you saying there are GMs who would change their world in order to
accommodate a player's character concept? Seriously?
Sanlos Institute
> Not game specific, and not mechanics.
I think this has to work at two levels, a general set of guidelines
for everyone, and then a personal 'way' for each player. I would
suggest these as general guidelines:
1. The purpose of the game is for everyone to have fun.
2. Players and GM should discuss what kind of gaming style they
prefer, preferably before choosing a game.
3. Where people prefer different gaming styles, people should try to
adapt and compromise where possible, and people should be open to
trying to play new styles. If this still doesn't work, splitting into
different groups to play different ways if probably a wise solution.
4. The GM is a guide and he should try to give the game a coherent
direction, for instance by making clear from the beginning what the
intended gaming style is, by making sure that the PCs are created as a
coherent party that will work together.
5. The GM and players should cooperate to make a fun experience.
Sometimes this means swallowing your pride and doing putting up with
something you don't like, such as having to go along with a forced
plot or not arguing for hours even if you're sure the GM is wrong.
Players should not disrupt the game by eg. hogging all the GM's time
or by arguing for hours against a GM ruling.
Now, I am the first to admit that that sounds like a load of
wishy-washy liberal crap and might well be termed 'Big Gay Al's Rules
of Political Correctness'. But people want such different things from
gaming that there's no sense trying to make out that there's only one
way to enjoy roleplaying (or gaming in the broader sense).
I would have my own personal way, the Way of Anorak, which describes
how I like to game. I would be attracted to games run this way and
other gamers who like the same thing would be attracted to my games.
Perhaps we could all have signature files with our own rules or
preferences in so that people could identify others they wanted to
game with more easily.
THE WAY OF ANORAK:
1. The game has a world which feels like a real place, and the PCs
should fit into it. The world should make consistent sense. Animated
skeletons should not be wandering around in the woods attacking people
for no understandable reason. Of course, things might happen for a
reason that is understood by the GM but not the players.
2. The PCs should have a purpose in life, such as a job - they should
not just be wandering around waiting for senseless scenario hooks to
bite on. If appropriate, PCs should be created to work together as a
group (for instance if they are starship crew, all the skills that are
needed to run a starship should be present). The abilities and
motivations of the PCs should be in accord with the demands of the
scenario (hopefully this can be achieved without too much
heavy-handedness, but if the PCs are cops then their motivation should
be to do their job - they will not blatanlty ignore crime and decide
instead to rob a bank and then run for Mexico).
3. The GM should control game balance. This means he can put an upper
limit on the power that PCs can start with and can reach. The
acceptable level is decided by the GM to keep PCs at a reasonable
place in their game-world: PCs should not be immune to normal threats
(they can't just stroll through town killing anyone they dislike and
then be able to defeat the whole Town Guard in a pitched battle) and
there should always be people more powerful than the PCS (eg. the
King's personal guards).
4. Scenarios should not involve forced plots. A scenario should depict
a situation into which the PCs enter: how they deal with it is up to
them. If the PCs are the King's troops charged with keeping peace
between hostile tribes, then how they do that job is up to their own
inventiveness. There should not be one single plot which players have
to follow. The game should not require that the PC acts against his
normal motivations, but conversely the PCs should not have motivations
that would take them against the intended current of action in the
game.
5. (This is a big one for me.) Experience points are bloody stupid and
should not exist. Characters' abilities should change at the normal
rate at which humans beings develop, both upward and downward. A
character who spends five game-years of out-of-game time as a
professional soldier should get a stat increase reflecting his
experience in this time. A character who spends five years on
out-of-game time living a life of luxury should get soft and lose
stats. PCs and NPCs should develop at similar rates. If it took Yoda
900 years to reach his current ability level, the it should take a PC
Jedi starting with the same stats as Yoda did the same length of time
to get there.
> Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without serious consideration of consequences.
This is really game-specific as most RPGs don't have alignment. I
think a better rule would be 'Alignment is a completely stupid idea so
you're better off playing games that don't have it.'
Captain Anorak
The Sanlos Institute
www.geocities.com/sanlosinst
David Meadows
news:8dd4ca0.04082...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> Now, I am the first to admit that that sounds like a load of
> wishy-washy liberal crap
Nope, it all sounds like common sense. I would imagine that the vast
majority of players follow these rules.
Arthur Boff
<da...@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>"First Prophet of Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:o160j0dsq6m86akh4...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:30:10 +0000 (UTC), web...@polaris.net
>> (Ubiquitous) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Rule 1: It's the GM's world. Your concept has to fit his/her world, not
>> >forcing his/her world to warp around your character.
>>
>> Troll O Meter
>>
>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
>> ___________________________________________________
>> | | | | | | | | | | |
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> ^
>> |
>>
>> Debunked countless times since I arrived here, and likely countless
>> times before. You should know better.
>
>Are you saying there are GMs who would change their world in order to
>accommodate a player's character concept? Seriously?
I've run games where the history of the world was *shaped* by players'
character concepts.
--
Must I live in the outlands with the mutants???
- Jerkcity.
Håvard Faanes
[SORCERER]
>
> Have you played this game? It sounds intersting to me and would
>love to read about your experiences with it, assuming you have any. I
>particularly liked the resolution mechanic. The setting seems good too.
No, haven't actually played it yet, but I found reading it immensely
interesting and I think alot of the ideas could be implemented in other
games too. The supplement Sorcerer And Sword is also very good.
The resolution mechanics are simple, which IMO is good. The limitation is
that they best model interraction between characters (including demons),
but not so well character interraction with non-living obstacles (walls to
be climbed, traps to be disarmed etc).
About the setting, it mainly concerns modern day wizards and demons, but
the various supplements have more settings based on the same premises.
Sorcerer and Sword includes three example settings, as well as lots of
thoughts on generic Sword & Sorcery settings (and how they differ from
modern fantasy settings).
I'm not that keen on the idea of 1 player and 1 GM style of gaming, but it
might be worth a shot.
Havard
Marc L.
>>> IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them,
>>> respect thyself, respect the game.
>>
>>Heh. Yeah. That's gonna happen.
>
> If you've got the right group, the second sentence goes without
> saying. If not, then you should find another group.
>
I agree. In the groups I play in, we have no problem with this
guideline.
Marc L.
news:8dd4ca0.04082...@posting.google.com:
> 1. The purpose of the game is for everyone to have fun.
Some would argue this very much, choosing to win instead as
their purpose. Especially when playing at conventions. So this could
hardly get the label of a universal guidline.
> 2. Players and GM should discuss what kind of gaming style they
> prefer, preferably before choosing a game.
This sounds very reasonable to me.
First Prophet of Kaos
>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2p9p0dF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "Håvard Faanes" <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>> news:slrncisjn...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no...
>> > Ken Andrews wrote:
>>
>> > >The DM is not required to force players to read their spells'
>> > >descriptions.
>> > > (While in Hell): I'm casting Gate. Which God? I don't care! Just
>> > >one at random.
>> >
>> > Different gaming styles. I bet Rules Lawyers love this style of gaming. I
>> > sure don't.
>>
>> You don't like a style of gaming where GMs expect spellcasters to have read
>> the descriptions of the spells they are casting?
>>
>> --
>> ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
>>
>
>It is considered wrong for players to use knowledge their characters
>don't know about to affect what they're character do or don't do.
>However, the reverse is also true. There can be instances where a
>player does not know something but his character by all rights should
>know. A spellcaster using his spells is among them.
Absolutely. Which is why I have no problems with players asking about
the finer points of the spells, or cutting newbies some slack on the
issue.
But when the player should bloody well know better, I tend to hold
higher expectations.
>It is quite
>possible for a player to not have the time to memorize every single
>spell in the player's handbook.
One need not do so; one need only understand with some competence the
particular spells in the character's spellbook and refresh his memory
on the details of the spells he's chosen to slot for the day
<presuming Wizard, follow analogs for other spellcasting classes.>
>There are more important bits of
>information in real life for a player to want and need to have
>knowledge of.
I tend to rank my hobbies as being somewhat important. They are,
after all, the reason why I work more hours than necessary to meet
basic living expenses. I also tend to enjoy learning the finer parts
of my hobbies; that is, after all, why I chose them as my hobbies.
If developing a basic understanding of your character and his spell
selection is more akin to 'work' than 'play' for you, you may be in
the wrong hobby.
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
<snip>
>Even aside from genre assumption mismatches:
>the player, being an early 21st century Westerner,
>has probably never seen a ballista fire; and has
>certainly never cast an illusion spell. Thus, he
>might not know "a ballista bolt will go right
>through an ordinary shield", though his character
>might. If in your campaign a caster *can't* believe
>in his illusion (sounds reasonable enough--he knows
>that he cast an illusion spell, not a bridge spell),
>--again, the player might not know this, but
>the character probably would.
Read _Liber Null_ by Peter J Carroll, that you might see mechanisms by
which a Wizard might intentionally create certain mental disorders
within himself to get around such issues. You'll probably have to go
to a specialist Occult bookstore or a rather large and well-stocked
library to find it, though.
Presuming that mere belief in the illusion is sufficient for it to
function as a bridge.
First Prophet of Kaos
<pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
>Doug Lampert wrote:
>> Prizing purity of the game over emotional reactions to the game is
>> perfectly rational IF you accept the premise that in the long run
>> a pure game is more satisfying than an impure one. I largly agree
>> with this premise; so it is a simple matter of long term gain for
>> a minor short term pain.
>>
>> Now, that said: What character you play is almost pure metagame,
>
>Yes. Or another way of putting it is that the term metagame has
>no meaning during the character creation phase.
The other way is more accurate.
<Snip>
>The only problem with such requirements is that they may
>restrict the character concept choices of the player to an
>unreasonable degree. For instance, if the players are all to
>create characters from the same tiny village, out on the
>frontier far from civilization, then a player who wants to make
>a mage-concept character is screwed.
>
>So there's a limit to how strict such requirements can be, and
>it's very easy to hit it...
This depends on what part of the process you make strict: the
details, or the requirement itself. A well-concieved background that
works around (rather than with) the details while not breaking their
spirit should garner exceptions regardless of how strict the details
are.
First Prophet of Kaos
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> writes
>>
>>> h...@nvg.ntnu.no (Håvard Faanes) wrote in
>>>>>nn. There's more than just you around the table - be considerate
>>>>>to the fact that *everyone* wants to have fun; don't try to have
>>>>>fun at the expense of your gaming compatriots.
>>
>>[Ian:]
>>>>Best one so far :)
>>
>>Marc L. wrote:
>>> I second that.
>>
>>I don't. Walking lightly, because one of the other players *might* have
>>sensibilities that are *intensely* *irrational*, is stupid.
>
>Well, if you will insist on playing with psychopaths...
He has little choice; he elevates the quest for immersion to the level
of psychosis, and it's really hard to kick yourself out of the game
and still play.
First Prophet of Kaos
>In article <f1ad8778.04082...@posting.google.com>,
> kla...@rowan.edu (David Klassen) wrote:
<Snip>
>> Yes. It's called "adjusting the parameters to fit the situation". If the
>> goal is to provide a suitable challenge for the players and enhance their
>> enjoyment, this is perfectly acceptible. If I design an encounter, and
>> it turns out to be fundamentally too easy or too hard, I change it.
>> Right then and there---no player consulation involved or needed.
>
>It is not your place to do so.
In many (tho obviously not all) games, it is. The rights and
responsibility of that task are foisted entirely apon the GM as part
of the process of deciding who GMs.
Stating it as a universal rule is quite obviously false, but implying
that it should never happen - as you've done - is also false.
First Prophet of Kaos
>Here are mine:
>
>It's the players' game too.
This is less a rule than an oft-forgotten consequence of the fact that
games need players.
>The GM can be in error such that a player character benefits when he
>rightly corrects the error.
Player characters cannot correct the GM, as they exist only in the
imagination. Perhaps you meant "player's character." I'd discard
this as a fundamental rule, though, due to the nonuniversal tendency
to discard it in favour of the expediency offered by "The GM is always
right while the game is in session."
>The GM is not entitled to screw over player characters for the sake of
>screwing them over.
Thus negating the whole theme and purpose of Paranoia.
>A player character, within the established rules, is allowed to be
>very good at something, also known as "powerful".
Unless the genre is geared otherwise, as is the case with classic Call
of Cthulhu. (I won't touch the d20 abomination by the same name, so I
can't say if it maintains the genre convention.)
>A player character with a maximum ability score is not sinful in his
>most useful ability.
This doesn't quite parse for me.
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
>web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote in message news:<cgkhk2$j8s$2...@news.utelfla.com>...
>> Ok, so I've been lurking on a gaming forum and want to slap all the posters
>> there. Someone was whining about not being allowed to do something they wanted
>> to do, because they were a role-player, and it would take forever to get to the
>> point they'd be allowed to do it, even though they were given a ROLE-PLAYING
>> reason why it was so. Made me want to whack 'em.
>>
>>
>> What else should we add?
>>
>
>Take a peek at the URL below, it has some fundemental rules of role-playing / GMing:
There are only two fundamental rules; all others are individual
approaches to following those rules.
1) This is a game. Have Fun.
2) The other players are there to have fun too. Don't spoil their fun
for your own sake. If this results in the game not being fun for you,
find another game or group.
I'm tempted to add in the following as a subsection of rule2, but it
may be personal bias:
2a) Deus Ex Machina may or may not be appropriate for the
protagonists, depending on how it impacts rules 1 and 2, but is never
appropriate for the antagonists.
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote ...
<Snip>
>I would propose a Rule 0 for the metagame. It'd be one of two I guess,
>depending on the campaign/GM/players.
>
>Metagame Rule 0 (version 1): We are here to have fun. If someone is not
>having fun for any reason, it needs to be sorted out and not allowed to
>run rampant. The GM will make a good effort to match the game style to
>the players, but has the right to branch out into different game styles
>to allow everyone the chance to experience more than just the current
>style. The players will give the GM feedback on what they like and
>dislike so as to better the experience for everyone.
>
>Metagame Rule 0 (version 2): We are here to tell a coherent, consistent
>story. If we're not telling a good story for any reason, it needs to be
>sorted out and not allowed to run rampant. The GM will make a good effort
>to construct a consistent world and will enforce a consistent set of rules,
>but has the right of the in-game Rule 0 to settle conflicts that may arise.
>The players will follow the lead of the GM's play style/campaign tone/etc.
>and help construct the coherent story that is to be told.
Meh. Version 2 is merely one interpretation of how best to achieve
Version 1.
Marc L.
> No, haven't actually played it yet, but I found reading it
> immensely interesting and I think alot of the ideas could be
> implemented in other games too. The supplement Sorcerer And Sword
> is also very good.
>
>
Thank you for your response.
Malachias Invictus
"forumite" <foru...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:d5c9d7f1.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2p9p0dF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Håvard Faanes" <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote in message
> > news:slrncisjn...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no...
> > > Ken Andrews wrote:
> >
> > > >The DM is not required to force players to read their spells'
> > > >descriptions.
> > > > (While in Hell): I'm casting Gate. Which God? I don't care! Just
> > > >one at random.
> > > Different gaming styles. I bet Rules Lawyers love this style of
gaming. I
> > > sure don't.
> > You don't like a style of gaming where GMs expect spellcasters to have
read
> > the descriptions of the spells they are casting?
> It is considered wrong for players to use knowledge their characters
> don't know about to affect what they're character do or don't do.
Sure.
> However, the reverse is also true. There can be instances where a
> player does not know something but his character by all rights should
> know.
Sure, and in cases where the player really has no reason to know, I will
inform them. The effects of spells a spellcaster is casting does not fall
under that category. Neither do the effects of feats or skills their
character possesses.
> A spellcaster using his spells is among them.
No.
> It is quite possible for a player to not have the time to memorize every
single
> spell in the player's handbook.
Strawman. It is not possible for the character to have every single spell
memorized at a time, either. Furthermore, you bolster my point: should the
GM then be expected to memorize every spell in the book, which you claim is
not possible?
> There are more important bits of information in real life for a
> player to want and need to have knowledge of.
Irrelevant, and a poor excuse to boot.
> How a particular spell works for the game is not among
> them.
If you want to play a spellcaster, knowing how your spells work is a
prerequisite.
> Hopefully as the game progresses the player will remember his
> more common used spells by mere fact of familiarity, but depending
> upon how often a particular cmapaign is played, familiarity time
> varies.
Until such a time, it is that spellcaster's duty to have his book handy, and
to refresh his memory before memorizing and casting the spell in question.
Are you honestly arguing that the GM, who is already handling many other
things, has the responsibility to look up spells for his players who are (I
assume) either too lazy or too stupid to do it themselves?
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Douglas Berry
was pushed over the cliffs of rec.games.frp.dnd on Sat, 28 Aug 2004
09:15:54 +0100 by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
>Are you saying there are GMs who would change their world in order to
>accommodate a player's character concept? Seriously?
I've done it when a player had a really cool concept. No major
changes, but if I had to add a cultural note, or invent an order of
questiong knights, I've done it.
A great character concept adds to the game. Why should I say no when
someone wants to add detail to my universe?
Brad Murray
> Are you saying there are GMs who would change their world in order to
> accommodate a player's character concept? Seriously?
Sure, why not? If a player has an exceptional character concept and
it's not too dramatic a change to the campaign world then I'll happily
do it. There's nothing so amazing about my campaign world that it can't
be improved and some of the best changes have been from player ideas.
Keith Davies
Indeed. This is one of the reasons I *don't* nail everything down when
I design a new world.
General stuff such as where the various kingdoms are and information
about what they're like gets written down. The farther away from the
expected play areas, the less information I prepare. I leave room for
my players to flesh out, should they be interested.
Some stuff gets done in detail, mostly because either the players will
be interacting with it directly (Lord Aliandros of Northport, for
example, was their patron) or because it drives at least part of the
plot (the existance of the Dragonward and the groups trying to either
fix it or break it entirely). That still leaves a lot of room to work
with.
Keith
--
Keith Davies
keith....@kjdavies.org
"Some do and some don't. I *hate* that kind of problem."
"Understandable. Consistency is important with fuck ups."
Travis Casey
Yep. And worlds don't spring from the GM's imagination instantly
fully-formed. I'll work with players to come up with cultures, kingdoms,
etc., especially if they have an interesting idea. Or if someone wants to
be from some "off the map" culture, that's usually fine too.
"The GM creates the world, the players create their characters" model is not
the only possible way to go.
--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
Bob Duncanson
"David Klassen" <kla...@rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:f1ad8778.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
...
> > For instance, in some worlds a Half-Elf could try to pass as
> > Human or Elf, socially.
Hey! Not so loud! IMC I'm doing that right now.
So far I think only the rogue suspects. The rest seem to believe my
character is an Elf,
despite my having to sleep at night.
Christopher Adams
>
> Are you saying there are GMs who would change their world in order to
> accommodate a player's character concept? Seriously?
*raises hand*
Even aside from settings which, like the campaign I'm preparing at the moment,
are intended to be largely shaped by what the players want to play - I have
broad strokes, like an island chain with lots of unexplored territory, but even
the larger details depend on what my players want - I've absolutely played in
games where GMs have given their assent to something "new" in the setting,
though it usually involves a less-than-straightforward introduction.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
First Prophet of Kaos
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:6g70j0p9r00u72fjq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote in
>>>news:--qdnZMQ2N-...@rfci.net:
>> <snip>
>>>> IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them, respect
>>>> thyself, respect the game.
>>>
>>>Heh. Yeah. That's gonna happen.
>>
>> If you've got the right group, the second sentence goes without
>> saying.
>
>How boring.
You tend to game with people you don't respect? That just doesn't
seem like you. Toy with them on usenet, perhaps, but not game with
them...
>> The first bit is twitchy, because it is highly disrespectful to be
>> inappropriately polite.
>>
>Respect is earned. That is the only way it can be gotten.
Given what you've said in the past, it would be surprising if you were
to admit to regularly gaming with people who had not already done so.
It would also be surprising if you lacked sufficient respect for
yourself to be rude when it is called for.
First Prophet of Kaos
Institute) wrote:
>> So, I was thinking. What are the basic, fundamental rules of role-playing?
>> Not game specific, and not mechanics.
>
>I think this has to work at two levels, a general set of guidelines
>for everyone, and then a personal 'way' for each player. I would
>suggest these as general guidelines:
>
>1. The purpose of the game is for everyone to have fun.
>
>2. Players and GM should discuss what kind of gaming style they
>prefer, preferably before choosing a game.
>3. Where people prefer different gaming styles, people should try to
>adapt and compromise where possible, and people should be open to
>trying to play new styles. If this still doesn't work, splitting into
>different groups to play different ways if probably a wise solution.
>4. The GM is a guide and he should try to give the game a coherent
>direction, for instance by making clear from the beginning what the
>intended gaming style is, by making sure that the PCs are created as a
>coherent party that will work together.
Some folks prefer adversarial parties. See rules 1 and 3.
>> Rule 4: Alignment is not to be taken to extreme measures without serious consideration of consequences.
>
>This is really game-specific as most RPGs don't have alignment. I
>think a better rule would be 'Alignment is a completely stupid idea so
>you're better off playing games that don't have it.'
Feh. Stop engaging in One True Wayism.
Terry Austin
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:16:29 -0000, Terry Austin
> <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>news:6g70j0p9r00u72fjq...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote in
>>>>news:--qdnZMQ2N-...@rfci.net:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them, respect
>>>>> thyself, respect the game.
>>>>
>>>>Heh. Yeah. That's gonna happen.
>>>
>>> If you've got the right group, the second sentence goes without
>>> saying.
>>
>>How boring.
>
> You tend to game with people you don't respect?
Is that the only part of the sentence above? Are you illiterate? Oh, wait,
you *are* illiterate.
Only a 'tard "respects" a game. It's only a game, dude.
> That just doesn't
> seem like you. Toy with them on usenet, perhaps, but not game with
> them...
>
>>> The first bit is twitchy, because it is highly disrespectful to be
>>> inappropriately polite.
>>>
>>Respect is earned. That is the only way it can be gotten.
>
> Given what you've said in the past, it would be surprising if you were
> to admit to regularly gaming with people who had not already done so.
>
> It would also be surprising if you lacked sufficient respect for
> yourself to be rude when it is called for.
>
How about if I'm rude to you when you act like a 'tard who can't read?
--
Terry Austin
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Campaign Cartographer Now Available
First Prophet of Kaos
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:b5r2j0t7nnaili8h4...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:16:29 -0000, Terry Austin
>> <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>First Prophet of Kaos <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>news:6g70j0p9r00u72fjq...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>>"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:--qdnZMQ2N-...@rfci.net:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> IV: Thou shalt be polite to thy fellow players. Respect them, respect
>>>>>> thyself, respect the game.
>>>>>
>>>>>Heh. Yeah. That's gonna happen.
>>>>
>>>> If you've got the right group, the second sentence goes without
>>>> saying.
>>>
>>>How boring.
>>
>> You tend to game with people you don't respect?
>
>Is that the only part of the sentence above?
The only one worth addressing.
>Only a 'tard "respects" a game. It's only a game, dude.
You're at a game, having fun; doesn't matter how you're doing it, that
is respecting the game. If you're not having fun, you've got the
wrong group. Which is why the whole thing goes without saying if
you've got the right group.
Are you getting hung up on respect, game or both?
Ubiquitous
>The DM is not required to use only D&D material.
> Aliens!?!?! They don't exist!!!
I would love for a D&D character to say "Dragon? But they're extinct!"
or "Dragon? There's no such thing!".
--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.