houstonderek wrote:
I'm going to have to ask you: did you have a really, REALLY bad DM back in the day? Or are you even FROM back in the day?
I need context.
Why does it matter. To quote a little puppy, "Does that make my point any more valid?"
It may not make any difference to you, but it would put your responses in an understandable context for the rest of us. We would be able to decide whether to ignore any comments from you or to listen to what you might have to say. As it is now I feel like ignoring you.
HD and Kirth, it might have gone differently if I had been better prepared also.
So as not to continue the threadjack:
SILVERHAIR
DEREK
|
Why does it matter. To quote a little puppy, "Does that make my point any more valid?"I'm going to have to ask you: did you have a really, REALLY bad DM back in the day? Or are you even FROM back in the day?
I need context.
You're making assumptions/observations about a playing style. I just want to know where your assumptions/observations, which contradict my experience, come from. If you had a "killer" DM, I can see why you'd be sour on old school gaming styles (we didn't like "killer dms" back then either, intentionally withholding info just so you can kill a party is a douche bag move). If you weren't part of the scene at the dawn of the game, then maybe I can try to persuade you that your perceptions may be skewed.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter unless the objective is a dialogue from a common reference point.
I am enjoying the opportunity to continue my education in early D&D. I am too new to the whole system to truly understand all of the references so hearing other perspectives helps a lot. Keep it up.
|
|
So as not to continue the threadjack:
SILVERHAIR** spoiler omitted **
DEREK** spoiler omitted **
I agree on both points, except maybe
It may not make any difference to you, but it would put your responses in an understandable context for the rest of us. We would be able to decide whether to ignore any comments from you or to listen to what you might have to say. As it is now I feel like ignoring you.houstonderek wrote:
I'm going to have to ask you: did you have a really, REALLY bad DM back in the day? Or are you even FROM back in the day?
I need context.
Why does it matter. To quote a little puppy, "Does that make my point any more valid?"
So the legitimacy of an argument is based on the person making the argument? I may be wrong but that sounds like classic ad hominem ...
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject." Wikipedia
Nods grizzled head.
Edit: Froggie makes me sad. How long does it take you to drive up from Mexico to Houston? I could drive down, we meet at HD's place, and he shows us how it's done. :D
Thanks for the offer but HD kinda freaks me out, so I better stay out of his place :P
|
|
It may not make any difference to you, but it would put your responses in an understandable context for the rest of us. We would be able to decide whether to ignore any comments from you or to listen to what you might have to say. As it is now I feel like ignoring you.houstonderek wrote:
I'm going to have to ask you: did you have a really, REALLY bad DM back in the day? Or are you even FROM back in the day?
I need context.
Why does it matter. To quote a little puppy, "Does that make my point any more valid?"
So the legitimacy of an argument is based on the person making the argument? I may be wrong but that sounds like classic ad hominem ...
** spoiler omitted **
Sure, but talking out of your ass with no context qualifies you for that "B.S." degree you joked about earlier. If I have no context, your argument exists in a vacuum, which is a whole other logical fallacy. Actually, several, not limited to: "Questionable Cause", "Begging the Question", "Division", et cetera and so on...
I was asking to try to understand your point of view. But if you do not wish to explain or express your point of view that is your decision. All of the post I have ever seen with your avatar and name seem to be nothing but agitation of whatever view point is being expressed. That is why I stated I choose to ignore anything you have to say. That is my choice.
Ok if it makes you feel better to know my gaming history for whatever reason.
Yes, I played older editions a little bit back in the 80s before I had pubes. I played a bit more in the mid 90's while in college and had pubes. And I've played pretty consistently since the about 2002 with the more recent previous edition.
Now, I don't game in the same fashion I do now as an adult that I did when I didn't have pubes. Maybe some people still play like they did before they got their pubes, that is their thing.
There does that history make the "context" any better that it is reasonable if current players want their game time to be meaningful?
|
|
Ok if it makes you feel better to know my gaming history for whatever reason.
Yes, I played older editions a little bit back in the 80s before I had pubes. I played a bit more in the mid 90's while in college and had pubes. And I've played pretty consistently since the about 2002 with the more recent previous edition.
Now, I don't game in the same fashion I do now as an adult that I did when I didn't have pubes. Maybe some people still play like they did before they got their pubes, that is their thing.
There does that history make the "context" any better that it is reasonable if current players want their game time to be meaningful?
It's interesting to me that the first time I heard the term "munchkin" (and, I admit, I wasn't gaming much past '93 until 2002) was in the context of 3x and the splat books. All I remember calling those guys back in the day was "little snot who couldn't find a game".
As far as my gaming style, and for most of our gaming styles, not a few of us were taught to play by adults, the guys who were "grognards" even in '79, so thanks for your "you play like a kid" inference, it allows me all the context I need.
It's interesting to me that the first time I heard the term "munchkin" (and, I admit, I wasn't gaming much past '93 until 2002) was in the context of 3x and the splat books. All I remember calling those guys back in the day was "little snot who couldn't find a game".
What is this about? Or are you implying that I am a munchkin? If that is the case, then you are very far off the reservation.
As far as my gaming style, and for most of our gaming styles, not a few of us were taught to play by adults, the guys who were "grognards" even in '79, so thanks for your "you play like a kid" inference, it allows me all the context I need.
The question isn't who taught you, but how are you playing. If you are playing the same fashion that you were taught in 198x, then I wonder why you haven't matured as a gamer, evolved if you will? If you are not playing in the same fashion, then on some level you understand my point.
Let me state my point again, because it seems as if we are talking past each other.
DMs decide which hooks to drop into a game. A DM could choose to drop hooks that cover encounters from CR 1/8 to CR 40, or a DM could drop only those hooks that are relevant to the current level of the party, assuming that their characters would recognize which hooks are beyond their abilities and not worth their time, so not wasting valuable game time. I am not suggesting that giving hooks that cover every possible level is BAD, I am suggesting that it is reasonable for people whose game time is limited to not waste it on details that are not currently relevant. If that offends some people, well I guess that is their problem.
|
|
It's interesting to me that the first time I heard the term "munchkin" (and, I admit, I wasn't gaming much past '93 until 2002) was in the context of 3x and the splat books. All I remember calling those guys back in the day was "little snot who couldn't find a game".What is this about? Or are you infering that I am a munchkin? If that is the case, then you are very far off the reservation.
As far as my gaming style, and for most of our gaming styles, not a few of us were taught to play by adults, the guys who were "grognards" even in '79, so thanks for your "you play like a kid" inference, it allows me all the context I need.The question isn't who taught you, but how are you playing. If you are playing the same fashion that you were taught in 198x, then I wonder why you haven't matured as a gamer, evolved if you will? If you are not playing in the same fashion, then on some level you understand my point.
Actually, it was just a comment about the "childish" barb. Munchkinism is about as childish as you can get, and it seems most pronounced in "modern" gaming.
As to the second part, "dumbing down the game" (2e, which was intentionally made "kid safe"), and focusing on "hack and slash" in the rule books (a common complaint at the dawn of 3x), hardly seem more "mature" or an "evolved" to me.
Considering it isn't 35 to 40 year old gamers that generally have a beef with my play style, and it is mostly a vocal group of youngsters apparently weaned on late 2e and WoD games, again, I think you need to rethink your definitions of "mature" and "evolved".
I like to think of "mature" to mean "adult", and, with the budding popularity of retro-clones and sandbox gaming with the older "O.G." gamers (i.e. the "adults" of the gaming world), I'd say my play style is quite mature. It is when an immature douche bag attempts the style that it breaks down, in fact.
So, try again :)
|
|
DMs decide which hooks to drop into a game. A DM could choose to drop hooks that cover encounters from CR 1/8 to CR 40, or a DM could drop only those hooks that are relevant to the current level of the party, assuming that their characters would recognize which hooks are beyond their abilities and not worth their time, so not wasting valuable game time. I am not suggesting that giving hooks that cover every possible level is BAD, I am suggesting that it is reasonable for people whose game time is limited to not waste it on details that are not currently relevant. If that offends some people, well I guess that is their problem.
Ok, now you are definitely confusing the issue. The green dragon from my example is, actually, an "anti-hook". If you know something much bigger and badder than you is somewhere, you don't GO there. It is something to work up to. But, it does add a level of verisimilitude that doesn't exist if everything in the gaming world is only "level appropriate".
DMs decide which hooks to drop into a game. A DM could choose to drop hooks that cover encounters from CR 1/8 to CR 40, or a DM could drop only those hooks that are relevant to the current level of the party, assuming that their characters would recognize which hooks are beyond their abilities and not worth their time, so not wasting valuable game time. I am not suggesting that giving hooks that cover every possible level is BAD, I am suggesting that it is reasonable for people whose game time is limited to not waste it on details that are not currently relevant. If that offends some people, well I guess that is their problem.Ok, now you are definitely confusing the issue. The green dragon from my example is, actually, an "anti-hook". If you know something much bigger and badder than you is somewhere, you don't GO there. It is something to work up to. But, it does add a level of verisimilitude that doesn't exist if everything in the gaming world is only "level appropriate".
"Anti-hook"? Yeah, no wonder the players sometimes go where it seems silly to. "See that big button over there that you didn't notice before and probably wouldn't have either, whatever you do, don't touch it!" Why waste time drawing attention to it if you don't want your players to go investigate it? A DM goes through the trouble of mentioning something, it isn't unreasonable for players to think, "This is important."
|
|
Yeah, gotta keep those short attention span, I bought my imagination for $39.99 in a splatbook ADD "gee, do green dragons even exist until we're seventh level?" "mature" "evolved" players on those railroad tracks, lest we all have "unfun"...
I give my players free reign to go where they will. I just don't make any promises that it is safe. I offer plenty of hooks they can explore and hope to survive, and there is an overall plot (loose, to be honest, but it's there) to the game I follow, but the world is a big, bad place, and there are big bad things out there, so if you can't be bothered to consult the sage (wow, roleplaying? in a ROLEPLAYING game? Who knew?) or at least the locals as to what the legends and common knowledge of the area say, well, you must like rolling new characters, evidently you didn't care enough about the one that just entered the wrong end of the food chain.
Just out of curiosity, are you given to wandering around in forests in strange places without any foreknowledge? And were you happy to be asked to "squeal like a pig"?
Yeah, gotta keep those short attention span, I bought my imagination for $39.99 in a splatbook ADD "gee, do green dragons even exist until we're seventh level?" "mature" "evolved" players on those railroad tracks, lest we all have "unfun"...
I'm sorry, you are absolutely correct. The only correct way to play the game without being a munchkin is to spend hours of game time with indepth discussions about every single detail that an NPC might ever know so that maybe the PCs might find something remotely interesting. Who if they happen to latch onto a detail that was not meant to be remotely do able and all their characters get slaughter, well tough for them, stupid bastards.
I bow before the superior intellect.
|
|
A DM goes through the trouble of mentioning something, it isn't unreasonable for players to think, "This is important."
That's just it. I don't mention it if they don't ask. It's on the players to do the groundwork. If they want to wander around blindly, so be it. If they can't handle that maybe they aren't ready for all the challenges the world has to offer, so be it. Not my problem. Go find another game, I won't cry, I promise. I am blessed with plenty of players who don't need their hands held, thank you.
|
|
Yeah, gotta keep those short attention span, I bought my imagination for $39.99 in a splatbook ADD "gee, do green dragons even exist until we're seventh level?" "mature" "evolved" players on those railroad tracks, lest we all have "unfun"...I'm sorry, you are absolutely correct. The only correct way to play the game without being a munchkin is to spend hours of game time with indepth discussions about every single detail that an NPC might ever know so that maybe the PCs might find something remotely interesting. Who if they happen to latch onto a detail that was not meant to be remotely do able and all their characters get slaughter, well tough for them, stupid bastards.
If the detail is, "there is a 50 foot dragon in them there woods, but he hardly ever bothers us as we pay tribute, but now, that tribe of gnolls over yonder have been raiding of late..." and the party is 2nd level, and decides to go in the woods, well, yes, they are stupid and deserve to die. Sorry.
I'm not above giving players goals they need to work up to, sorry if you see this as "badunfun".
If the detail is, "there is a 50 foot dragon in them there woods, but he hardly ever bothers us as we pay tribute, but now, that tribe of gnolls over yonder have been raiding of late..." and the party is 2nd level, and decides to go in the woods, well, yes, they are stupid and deserve to die. Sorry.Yeah, gotta keep those short attention span, I bought my imagination for $39.99 in a splatbook ADD "gee, do green dragons even exist until we're seventh level?" "mature" "evolved" players on those railroad tracks, lest we all have "unfun"...I'm sorry, you are absolutely correct. The only correct way to play the game without being a munchkin is to spend hours of game time with indepth discussions about every single detail that an NPC might ever know so that maybe the PCs might find something remotely interesting. Who if they happen to latch onto a detail that was not meant to be remotely do able and all their characters get slaughter, well tough for them, stupid bastards.
Absolutely, oh great and mighty sage. How dare they challenge your will.
|
|
Absolutely, oh great and mighty sage. How dare they challenge your will.
That's just it. It isn't my will. It's my gaming world. I just like to make it real. My will is that they poke around and find stuff they can handle, and save all the other info for a time they can take the challenge on with a reasonable chance of success.
I don't have railroads in my game. Only free will. And free will, without intelligence, is a recipe for disaster.
I change my mind, they didn't "dumb down" the game, they gave it a lobotomy...
Absolutely, oh great and mighty sage. How dare they challenge your will.That's just it. It isn't my will. It's my gaming world. I just like to make it real. My will is that they poke around and find stuff they can handle, and save all the other info for a time they can take the challenge on with a reasonable chance of success.
I don't have railroads in my game. Only free will. And free will, without intelligence, is a recipe for disaster.
I change my mind, they didn't "dumb down" the game, they gave it a lobotomy...
Absolutely oh mighty and powerful sage, yes, their will to go and face the dragon that you in your great benevolence saw fit to place there. Their will to listen to your stories of great lore. Let it be written, let it be done!
Let none suggest there may be other ways to run games other than houstonderek's way. For his is the one true way, all others are false.
DANGER HOUSTONDEREK! DANGER HOUSTONDEREK! Troll Alert! Troll Alert!
Hey all... I've been subscribed to this thread via RSS for what I think is a few months now. I just wanted to throw out that the original article on JM's Grognardia blog ("Gygaxian Naturalism") was included in the recently published Open Game Table: Anthology of Roleplaying Game Blogs. If you haven't heard of it, check out the review of the anthology on WIRED. At the very least, please Digg / Stumble / Reddit the review to show your support. Thanks!
Well, that's it for shameless plugs. Now back to your regularly schedule broadcasting...
Dammit. I come back home and see 41 new posts in this thread, and I stupidly think, "What brilliant comment of mine spurred mighty thoughts on Gygaxian Naturalism?"
And what do I see!!!!!!!!!! Damn thread-jacking colossal context providin' Houstonians going on and on!
ARGH!!!!!!!
And truly the secret to snark is everyone being in on the game.
Thanks for the plug on the book, JJ. JM certainly got an interesting conversation going. It seems that multiple people nominated it for inclusion, and it's good to see it getting out there. And I always enjoy popping over to Grognardia because he stirs my thinking and gives me new info every time, to whatever extent I happen to agree with him on a given subject. To Pax, he must be at least a demi-god or something. ;P
[Sadly, that's how it often plays out, but it doesn't HAVE to: the whole "role-playing" vs. "roll-playing" thing is a false dichotomy. Ideally, there would be a Cool School: "I push, pull, twist, and prod the protrusion on the wall, with a 25 on my check. What happens?" And maybe the DM sees the check fails, and says, "There must be a trick to pulling on it that you're missing... or maybe it's just stuck."
Hey, that sounds familiar...
Also HD, what happened to your collection!?
|
|
[Sadly, that's how it often plays out, but it doesn't HAVE to: the whole "role-playing" vs. "roll-playing" thing is a false dichotomy. Ideally, there would be a Cool School: "I push, pull, twist, and prod the protrusion on the wall, with a 25 on my check. What happens?" And maybe the DM sees the check fails, and says, "There must be a trick to pulling on it that you're missing... or maybe it's just stuck."Hey, that sounds familiar...
Also HD, what happened to your collection!?
The DEA.
|
'Gygaxian Naturalism' as you would say is about world building - rather it is about Storytelling something beyond the basic roll dice and smash orks head game that it is becomming. Every story has a background. Perhaps WOTC have decided that there is to much profit drain from the central company and storytelling tools need to be concentrated in the hands of the company.
Its no coincidence that 2E D&D appeared to be tied with the sudden Peak in Storytelling (D&D Novels).
(For the record, I only subscribed to Dungeon when Paizo had the mags, I didn't need a monthly splatbook that was even less playtested than the typical WotC hardcover splat...)
Actually, back in the day, they where play tested. Maybe not all of them but most of them. If ypu go back through your old Dungeons you'll find that there was usually some place where they thanked all the play testers of the issue.
I'm not sure exactly when that stopped but, Maybe when the magazine went monthly - maybe even before that. Kind of too bad really as its not unheard of for even the best adventure designers (Paizo) to make an error that would have been caught in play testing. That said the message board does serve as a good resource in this regard. Lots of problems in teh adventures are picked up by those that run them earlier and if this sort of thing bothers you you can hold off and fix any weak parts before you run your group through the adventure.
Old school: "I push, pull, twist and prod the protrusion on the wall. What happens?"
New school: "I roll a 25 on my check. What happens?"
Sadly, that's how it often plays out, but it doesn't HAVE to: the whole "role-playing" vs. "roll-playing" thing is a false dichotomy. Ideally, there would be a
Cool School: "I push, pull, twist, and prod the protrusion on the wall, with a 25 on my check. What happens?" And maybe the DM sees the check fails, and says, "There must be a trick to pulling on it that you're missing... or maybe it's just stuck."
Under ideal conditions I think your right but I don't think its as easy as that. In your example what if touching the protrusion causes nasty things to happen? Did the player touch it no matter what the die roll says or does the DM jump in and say something like "Before you touch the icky protrusion your realize thats its bad because of....blah blah blah"?
In other words does the result of the die roll (and here I am presuming that 25 is a good enough roll) trump what the players say or not?
If the DM does not jump in then the players are essentially being rewards to be vague and to let the die do the 'talking'. If the DM does jump in then it starts to make more sense to roll the die and allow the DM to weave the story around the die roll. The last is not necessarily bad but its one more element of the players interaction with the world which is no longer in the players hands but actually in the DMs hands.
"Anti-hook"? Yeah, no wonder the players sometimes go where it seems silly to. "See that big button over there that you didn't notice before and probably wouldn't have either, whatever you do, don't touch it!" Why waste time drawing attention to it if you don't want your players to go investigate it? A DM goes through the trouble of mentioning something, it isn't unreasonable for players to think, "This is important."
While I can see your point about 'wasting valuable game time' as one that has a certain amount of validity I don't agree with the idea you seem to be espousing that its always bad.
If time is short and precious it may be a reasonable choice by the DM and players to forgo anything that is not of immediate interest to the adventure at hand.
However its just as reasonable for a group to play in a style of gaming which tries to include as much detail in the fantasy world as possible and then allow the players to navigate it as they see fit.
Obviously in both these cases the players and the DM should be on the same page as to which style of gaming is being utilized so as to avoid confusion.
At the same time, this is going to have to take account of Gygax's mercurial and complex personality and approach to gaming. He also said things that made D&D sound like chess, which isn't "naturalistic" at all, so these different strands would have to be separated out for us to understand what all is going on here.
Real world combat (an activity at least as complex and many-faceted as RPGs) has, at various times, been likened to chess (or American football, or soccer). Many historians have attributed the horrendous casualties of WWI at least partially to a misreading of Clausewitz and a corresponding over-emphasis on elan and mass. IMO, the wrangling over which axis of the GSN roleplaying concept is most "important" misses the point just as much.
Again, IMO all three aspects need to be addressed and work together for table-top roleplaying to realize its strengths: Narrative elements driving the Simulation of NPCs to provide challenging Game encounters; IMO focusing primarily on Game mechanics at the expense of Narrative and Simulation, in todays digital world, is a mistake since computer/console RPGs can handle that aspect better than people. In this context, the disassociation of 4e Game mechanics from the Narrative and Simulation aspects is germane in that it makes it more difficult to integrate the three aspects within the campaign setting (which is what the article is pointing out). One of the big draws of 3.x was the effort that went into the unification of Game mechanics and Narrative/Simulation elements (yes, it wasn't perfect or successful in all cases, but it was better than "out of the box" BECMI D&D or AD&D); this made it easier to fit all three aspects together consistently and comprehensively in a coherent campaign setting.
While "Munchkin" may be the new terminology, the concept isn't a new one. "Monty Haul" is the 80s term I'm familiar with, and that I suspect you're familiar with. And splat-books are at least as old as 2nd edition and the Complete ... Handbook series, along with blatant power creep.It's interesting to me that the first time I heard the term "munchkin" (and, I admit, I wasn't gaming much past '93 until 2002) was in the context of 3x and the splat books. All I remember calling those guys back in the day was "little snot who couldn't find a game".
As far as my gaming style, and for most of our gaming styles, not a few of us were taught to play by adults, the guys who were "grognards" even in '79, so thanks for your "you play like a kid" inference, it allows me all the context I need.
Technically, "Munchkin" is closer to the old term "Power Gamer." "Monty Haul" is a term that was used for certain types of campaigns that awarded excessive amounts of treasure and other goodies (like everyone having +5 swords or artifacts by 9th or 10th level). 3.x is still derided as being "Monty Haul" in some quarters because of the Wealth by Level table.*
*- "In my day we would fight demons, devils, dragons, and giants by the score and be happy to receive a frost brand longsword. The DM had absolute control over the game, except for what actions the PC's declared, and things were great, even when we got killed... Damn kids and their newfangled notions of level appropriate encounters and rewards. GET OFF MY LAWN!" ;-P
This thread LIVES!
The master will be pleased...
Thanks, Dragonchess. Although I continue (in this case, passively) my protest against this "three aspects" carving up of the RPG pie (which I've posted about up thread.)
OT: HD
Again, it is odd to me that people react to 3.x the way that DC describes. Why would DMs think they have lost any legitimate control over the game due to a table? As if there were house-raiding rules police who compel DM submission? If changes to the rules helped balance power a bit more between the players and the DM, I can see a diminished feeling of DM power resulting from the extent to which certain kinds of players are allowed (yes, allowed) to take advantage of it or is this caused by DMs who didn't grow up under a DMG that had the disclaimer about DM rulings?
Thanks, Dragonchess. Although I continue (in this case, passively) my protest against this "three aspects" carving up of the RPG pie (which I've posted about up thread.)
It's a generally useful (and fairly well accepted/understood) way to discuss/label RPGs without getting too far into game theory, psychology/sociology, and techniques of cooperative storytelling (and other aspects of the RPG experience) or using personal terminology. Like most models, it doesn't cover everything perfectly and can be misused. Specific components of an adventure or campaign can fall in multiple aspects on the GSN continuum; what's important is how they inter-relate and how much "friction" is caused between the elements that contribute/detract from the overall gaming experience for a particular group.
Again, it is odd to me that people react to 3.x the way that DC describes. Why would DMs think they have lost any legitimate control over the game due to a table?
For the most part, it's because they've developed houserules, methods, and techniques that work they way they (and their group) like with the stories they want to tell in their campaign settings. In other words, they've already established how the Game rules support the Simulation of the Narratives in the games they run.
3.x, however, uses different underlying assumptions on how the Game rules interact with the Simulation of Narratives. This requires them to develop new houserules, methods, and techniques to enable them to use the 3.x Game rules to support the way they're used to Simulating their campaign Narratives.
There's also the perception that the establishment of a "baseline" power level in the rules is WotC telling them "they're playing the game wrong."
It's a generally useful (and fairly well accepted/understood) way to discuss/label RPGs without getting too far into game theory, psychology/sociology, and techniques of cooperative storytelling (and other aspects of the RPG experience) or using personal terminology. Like most models, it doesn't cover everything perfectly and can be misused. Specific components of an adventure or campaign can fall in multiple aspects on the GSN continuum; what's important is how they inter-relate and how much "friction" is caused between the elements that contribute/detract from the overall gaming experience for a particular group.
Well, I am probably not going to agree to either the utility or the currency of GNS, as I think the earlier history of this thread is a testament to the extent to which it is not useful and the extent to which people assume that they know what GNS means and then stumble all over it, so be forewarned of my posts: they will likely contain alternative terminology or the same/similiar terms with my own meaning.
But that aside: welcome to the discussion, Dragonchess, I find your other comments helpful!
While I can see your point about 'wasting valuable game time' as one that has a certain amount of validity I don't agree with the idea you seem to be espousing that its always bad.
You are right, it is not like I every said something like:
I am not suggesting that giving hooks that cover every possible level is BAD, I am suggesting that it is reasonable for people whose game time is limited to not waste it on details that are not currently relevant.
Though as it happens I disagree with you about mechanics being a strength in computer games. The one fundamental thing that a tabletop RPG has that a cRPG lacks is a GM.
The GM isn't about the mechanics themselves, though, but more about their application. But you're right: The possibility of tweaking game mechanics to fit your style and to take care of the special cases that pop up when you try to simulate a "realistic" world rather than playing a game is the biggest advantage of P&P over computer games.
But mechanics themselves? Computer wins. Beyond things like illumination and interaction between spells, as you described, there's other possibilities for really complex mechanics. Stuff you wouldn't want in a P&P game where you'd be sitting there for half an hour computing the data for your 6 second turn. Each.
For example, I like the initiative system from Heroes of Might and Magic V: Each creature has an initiative value, and it is modified by morale, which depends on many things, like whether you're defending your town, how good the commanding hero's morale is, whether you have only critters from your own faction, whether the commander is a different alignment than you (there are basically light and dark factions), and so on.
From all that, the computer calculates when each creature's turn comes up again. If you have good morale, your turn will come again sooner, and the opposite is true for bad morale. The Spell haste also makes your turn come sooner, and some other abilities can quicken or delay your turn. Some hero skills, like sorcery, also affect it (if a Hero with sorcery casts a spell on his turn, he'll only lose part of his turn, meaning he'll act again sooner).
Note that the differences between "turn speeds" are big enough so that some critters activate twice before others get to act even once. Depending on the circumstances, it can be even more than that.
This system is incredibly complex, and without a computer, you couldn't hope to implement it in anything even closely to real time.
Maybe one day we'll have hybrid RPGs: Have the computer take care of all final calculations, while the GM is able to change stuff by hand. You'd still have a table top and minis, but the map would be virtual (projected onto the table with a beamer).
I already use my Lap to help me with my GMing, and would certainly welcome better support - as long as the game retained the versatility and freedom it has today.
I was going to leave this thread alone until I had a chance to go back and read all four hundred posts, but…
I see both of pres man’s and houstonderek’s points and I think they were talking past one another.
How can a world feel there is more than what meets the eye is it is little more than a reflection of the protagonists? If the protagonists are the focus of the story, how is that story advanced by their pointless death?
I would be greatly disappointed in a book if the main hero died for no reason. Of course, I am not a fan of Tolkien, so my literary preference is questionable. My favorite book is The Three Musketeers. When I first picked it up, I knew full well that the friends would not die. That knowledge, in no way, lessened my enjoyment of the book.
Just because the player knows his character will not die does not mean the character knows he can not die. Of course I realize that this completely ruins it for some players. Where is the challenge? For me, the challenge is not surviving. The challenge is creating an interesting story. If the challenge is just about surviving, then it feels more like a game to me.
|
|
Just because the player knows his character will not die does not mean the character knows he can not die. Of course I realize that this completely ruins it for some players. Where is the challenge? For me, the challenge is not surviving. The challenge is creating an interesting story. If the challenge is just about surviving, then it feels more like a game to me.
The challenge isn't "just about surviving" in my game, and my players and I have come up with some seriously kick ass stories through the years. But, if the threat of death is just a plot device, and not a reality, THAT feels like a game to me. May as well put a quarter slot on my DM screen, frankly.
(And, in a game where Raise Dead and Reincarnate aren't exactly rare, character death is basically an inconvenience, not a game stopper)
My example of the green dragon in the woods wasn't to say I pointlessly kill characters. Heck, I don't WANT them to go into the woods before they're ready to handle it, and, for all anyone knows, maybe the dragon story is just a rumor started by bandits using it as camouflage, but it is little details like that that make the world come alive to me. If the world is ONLY about the players, you go way too far in the opposite direction than the Forgotten Realms (for example) with all of the "Mary Sue" NPCs and inane minutiae in the setting details.
Besides, the point of this thread was "Gygaxian Naturalism", and I was just pointing out examples of how I apply that in my world. I don't play "The One True Way", I play MY way. Some people like it, some don't, but I don't cater to those who don't, frankly.
:)
I play similar to HD, in that if the PCs ask "Whats going on in town? Anything new on the rumor mill?" I then give them a few rumors. Usually one or two thats "level appropriate", one "below level", one "high level" and one final "not your problem, yet". If possible, I make them related, or at least seem related.
Example using Level 4 PCs:
EL 4 Hook1: Ogres have been menacing the caravans coming from the west, people think something has stirred them up or taken control of them.
EL 4 Hook2: The notorious theif Vindeloo was spotted riding towards town, and an anonymous tip implies that Baron Rochletoft is his target. The baron is looking for mercenaries of skill to guard his estate and capture the theif, who is known to not back down from any detterrent.
EL1 Hook: Miss Miggens Pie Shop apparently has some sort of rat problem. Someone who deals with it might get a few free meals out of it.
EL6 Hook: A wandering mystic arrived in town and began warning everyone to set out offerings for the Crimson Storm. Who or what this Crimson Storm is remains unknown, but the two young men who openly mocked the mystic turned up dead the next night, torn to shreds by a pack of animals apparently.
EL 12 Hook: One of the hunters from the southern hills said he found a patch of rock with a few broken red dragon scales scattered about, like the beast had sated an itch there. From the size, it would be a great beast, the likes of what Motlan the Bold defeated in the Ballad of Crying Flames.
I allow Knowledge checks for them to get basic ideas of what is within their capabilities. Its not unreasonable for a person aware of the limitations and strength of both his own group and the potential threat to make a general assement of the danger. Works for me, might not work so well for others. I admit, getting weekly play sessions of 5 hours makes it easier to slow down the pace of the game.