We don't make self-playing guitars as the standard expectation for every amateur who simply wants to sit alone somewhere and strum a few chords on occasion.
But we do make self-playing pianos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self playing guitar for a GM - that would be a game that runs itself. Which is a thing that no one has once advocated for in this discussion. The current strain of the topic was about mixing and matching mechanics and then the usage of generic systems.
The topic of GM proficiency and now self running games was an argument you invented whole cloth so that you could then dismantle it before our eyes.
As for your other repeated topic about recognizing GMing as both its own artform and as a profession with accreditable professional standards, perhaps you should create a thread of your own to discuss that rather than continually trying to force this conversation about various systems to fit within the confines of the conversation you want to have.
But we do make self-playing pianos.
We don't make self-playing guitars as the standard expectation for every amateur who simply wants to sit alone somewhere and strum a few chords on occasion.But we don't have new players rely on a self playing piano to get good music and then praise them for being good pianists.
*Blink, blink*
But we don't have new players rely on a self playing piano to get good music and then praise them for being good pianists.
And we also don't have new TTRPG players or new TTRPG GMs relying on a game that plays itself and then praise them as good TTRPG players or GMs so this is absolutely meaningless argument that advances the discussion in no way.
I think you missed the point
Once again you didn't actually make a point related to the conversation we were having.
You never do. You take the current topic, respond to it as broadly as you can in such a way as to allow you to pivot to a conversation about one of your three favorite topics.
1. D20 3.X
2. The game you are creating
3. The GM as true genius and arbiter of all creativity in a game.
You, as usual, just sprang forth multiple meandering paragraphs about GM competency which was NOT A COMPONENT of our conversation about mixing and matching mechanics. When questioned about what that competence argument could possibly mean you goalpost shifted that to be about "self playing guitars."
If there was a system out there that was a self playing guitar it would be utterly irrelevant to a conversation about whether or not I want to run the Ravenloft module with the classic World of Darkness instead of D&D 2e - which is a distillation of the kind of topic we were discussing.
I wasn't forcing anything. This was a response to what someone else asked.
No it wasn't a response to something someone asked you. There is this neat trick you might want to try called scrolling back and rereading. You injected a conversation about competence and system not actually mattering to a competent GM. Orville made a snippy comment about you being done here in response to your statement about the system not mattering. I asked a sarcastic question about who accredits such a thing -since it in fact does not exist -which prompted you to ONCE AGAIN wax poetic about the all powerful GM in his infinite professional creative abilities vs. the "self playing guitar."
No one engaged with you on the topic of GM competence or professional GM's in any real way in this thread beyond sarcastic derision. No one ever does. You inject it into conversation as often as you are able. Just like you do with your incessant discussion of D&D 3.X.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IC, nobody brought up new GM vs experienced GM. Nobody brought up GM competency and if system matters at all. This entire thread is about systems mattering. You took this conversation away from that into a derail. If you want people to argue with you about GM competency and self playing guitar systems, please start your own thread.
I do so enjoy when you claim that anyone who disagrees with you is doing so based on their emotionality. I'm sure that telling people to "calm down" when they calmly disagree with you is a thing that goes over well in all areas of your life.
Had you been engaging in this thread in good faith you would have logically concluded that the phrase "System matters" couched in the middle of a paragraph was not a statement about playability rules or GM competence. In fact you wouldn't have needed much logic to determine what he was saying, it was clearly expressed in the remainder of the paragraph that he was stating that "System matters" as far as genre tropes and assumptions.
His comment above jibes exactly with his original statement.
You, however, were not engaging in this thread in good faith and didn't interact with the phrase "System matters" in the spirit in which is was put forth in the conversation.
As always, you were looking for an excuse to pivot to your second favorite topic: "GM competence" and when you found it you pivoted hard. I know that because the only comment you made that even mentions genre assumptions was in response to the popcorn man, and it was included in that response in such a way as to wholly dismiss the argument thejeff made as if it had never been brought up. So clearly you were not engaging with him or his comments.
Claiming that your disingenuous "self player guitar" thing was in response to thejeff and his commentary about the system mattering is entirely illogical as it came the following day in a direct response to something I said and was used as an analogy to represent that just because most GM's will never master a TTRPG system we shouldn't design a TTRPG system around the level of mastery most GM's will reach. Your analogy is specifically about the idea that TTRPG's are the instrument and dumbing that down results in a system so simple that it will be beneath your hypothetical TTRPG Mozart. This does not logically connect to either the topic of System and genre, Generic systems and their value, or mixing and matching system and setting.
Why don't you try actually engaging in this thread in good faith? Is it really that hard to set your desire to talk about D&D 3.X and GM competency aside for a moment and think logically about other systems and converse about them without directing the topic back to what you prefer to be discussing? Or is that kind of self-discipline too hard?
Ignoring the derail and trying to get us back on topic...
I agree. They seem like a good idea, but rarely work out well - at least across broad differences in setting and genre. System matters. Different systems play differently and one designed with the genre assumptions in mind works better.
Major rewrites using the same basic engine can work better, but even they often struggle. Thinking the glut of d20 games back in the 2000s or things like AGE or Powered by the Apocalypse. I suspect you still hit limits as you move too far from the original assumptions.
I’d hesitate to discuss D20 as a true “generic” system. Sure with the OGL it was billed as such, but it was built around the core assumptions of D&D first and then those were filed off to make it “generic.”
From the talk I hear about PbtA you can bend that system 8 ways from Sunday without cracking its spine. Cinematic Unisystem was pretty flexible. Genesys handles Star Wars, High Fantasy and Cyberpunk with ease.
Even GURPS was pretty flexible at its core - it’s the book bloat that weighs it down.
Generic systems can work pretty well, as long as the specific game you're using has enough mechanical distinctiveness to customize it for the genre and style of the game you want to run.
Agreed 100% with Dirtypool on GURPS. The core rules are solid, and that was my game of choice for most of the 1990s. Where GURPS gets into trouble is the rules bloat from all the different sources... many of which just aren't compatible with each other. The solution is for the GM to strictly define and limit which sources are in-play for the game. There are a few other world-building parameters that the GM has to set and then be very clear about with the players, but as long as everyone is on the same page, GURPS works really well.
Another example is Fate Core. Out of the box, the book provides only about 85% of what you need to actually run a game: The basic rules provide a scaffolding, but you need to flesh out the remaining 15% to make the game playable: and not just in terms of setting/lore. The GM and players need to make some decisions about things like... What's the skill list? Will there be combat? If so, how deadly will it be? Are heath and psyche separate tracks or unified? What special effects are in play (i.e. cybernetics, magic, psychics, super-science)? What are the mechanics for those SFX?
I also completely agree with DP that some "generic" systems aren't actually all that generic. The d20/OGL is basically a combat simulation system, with a bare-bones skill subsystem bolted onto the side. If combat isn't going to be front-and-center in your game, it's a very poor choice.
"Powered by the Apocalypse" isn't an RPG system at all: It's a game design framework. There is no SRD, because there isn't a common set of mechanics: Each PbtA game is its own thing. The underlying game mechanics determine who has narrative control in a given scene, and under what parameters. But each specific PbtA game defines that very differently. The actual resolution mechanics for PbtA games can be all over the map... although there is a common convention of roll 2d6, add an appropriate modifier: on 10+ you get what you want, on 7-9 you get want you want BUT..., and on 6- you get something other than what you wanted. (But you ALWAYS get SOMETHING.)
I've seen PbtA games that use different dice mechanics (2d10, or d10 v 2d6, or playing cards). I've also seen some that change the range and what happens. (e.g. in Apocalypse Keys, roll 2d6+modifier: on 11+ you get too much of what you wanted, on 8-10 you get want you want, on 7- you can get what you want if you pay a price.)
I've been told that Cortex Prime is one of the best generic systems out there, but I don't have enough experience with it to have an opinion. It's very high on my "want to try" list.
I haven't touched GURPS since 3rd Edition, but I suspect it absolutely remains a workhorse of a system if you're willing to take the time to curate the books available to you and your players. A lot of players fully get the idea that not everything should be available and that it depends on the game you want to play - there are other people who come from the school that if it is in a published product they should be allowed to use it. I've seen some true knockdown/dragouts over whether a sword from a supplement that also includes space lasers should be included in a fantasy game.
Cinematic Unisystem was an attempt to occupy a very similar space as GURPS, but with d10 as the base die rather than a d6 and more licensed properties supported by the system.
I can see, if Edge Studio continues to support the product, Genesys getting to the same bloat point eventually. For right now it does remain a fairly open space. The Corebook presents the rules to use the system within 7 different generic settings (Fantasy, Steampunk, Occult War, Modern Day, Hard Science Fiction, Space Opera and Superheroes.) The Core release products after that flesh out less generic settings and expand options for that genre of play but only three had been released before FFG's financial troubles.
I haven't touched GURPS since 3rd Edition, but I suspect it absolutely remains a workhorse of a system if you're willing to take the time to curate the books available to you and your players. A lot of players fully get the idea that not everything should be available and that it depends on the game you want to play - there are other people who come from the school that if it is in a published product they should be allowed to use it. I've seen some true knockdown/dragouts over whether a sword from a supplement that also includes space lasers should be included in a fantasy game.
Yup.
We played 3rd edition and 3rd edition revised, and that was exactly the problem: If the GM said, "Anything goes" then some players would pull things from sources that either weren't genre-appropriate or properly balanced for the game. Things went much better when the GM was very explicit about which supplements were allowed and had veto power over character options... including letting a player use something provisionally and then have them replace it if it didn't work right in play. Some players would respect that, and some would not.
GURPS is another game that wants the players to be on the same page about how much optimisation is happening, too. Even with all the same sources you can get some startling divergences between what a narrowly focused character can do and one where the player tries to do everything.
I'm only going to reply to this latest post because I want it to be stated absolutely clearly why I will resume ignoring you from this point forward; why others should, and I suspect will likely, do the same; and why you should heed the request of this threads OP and take your topic to your own thread.
First point. No one was complaining about the explanation for your premises, we complained about yet another derail of the topic we are engaging with each other in.
We are talking with each other about things, we're engaging on those topics. You then post in such a way as to attempt to drag us back to your topic. You always do this. You're doing it right now. We had moved on from your derail the other day and you jumped right back in so that your derail would become the primary topic.
Second point. "Systems matter" was a statement, not a question. No one asked you anything about whether or not systems matter. Someone stated that systems matter as related to genre and tone and you responded to that by moving your goalpost. Like you usually do. If you want to now have a context conversation explaining why you said what you said - try to remember that this is a threaded conversation that we can all easily reread. Yourself included.
Third point. Neither Premise 1 nor Premise 2 related to what we were discussing in this thread at the time it only related to one of your three preferred topics, which if you had not noticed - no one actually wants to engage with you on.
Fourth point. The way you have "explained" yourself and the way you are explaining it now, days later, isn't relevant to the conversation we were having then and it isn't relevant to the conversation we are having now.
Final point. You are constant disruptive force on this thread. Whether it's me who gets goaded into replying to you, or any of the other threads regular posters whom you are repeatedly combative with when you try to assert your static, unchanging viewpoints about 3.X and GM prowess. There are appropriate sub-forums in this Gamer Life area of the board for all of your topics, please use them instead of dragging this conversation (which was literally created because you had derailed an earlier thread) to where you want it to be.
Soooo, lets talk about role play aids in systems like the classic alignment. A very divisive mechanic that brings many a gamer to tears just thinking about it. Others, have come to love alignment as an excellent morality shorthand for fleshing out NPCs and understanding their motives. For players, it can help guide their story as it unfolds at the table. It's also been abused by poor GMs and bad players. Unlike success mechanics, role play aids are subjective by their very nature.
What do y'all think about these types of sub-systems in TTRPGs? Do you like them? Do you hate them? Are they nice in the Fall but hell in the winter? Also, what other types of aids have you experienced?
I did try out Masks once. I recall a few items that seemed to me to be personality quirks, ideals, and flaws. Also, I recall having some descriptors indicating how my character should feel about other characters at the table. The RP was open ended for the player, but it was like having big arrows saying, "go this way, do these things" which some might find helpful, and others completely unnecessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what, since you claim that I’m failing to actually think about what you said - let’s analyze together as a group. The statement made by thejeff the one that you have claimed is both a question that was directly asked of you and a polite and interesting conversation you wanted to continue was as follows:
System matters. Different systems play differently and one designed with the genre assumptions in mind works better.
Pretty clearly thejeff is referring to genre and narrative conceits baked into the system.
Now let’s break down your reply
I find that the competence of the gm matters. A mediocre gm relies more on the system thus resulting in the system setting the pace and tone, but a better gm can take control of pace and tone and thus system matters less.
Though you do mention tone, you respond about pacing an encounter - which was not part of the statement thejeff made. While he was mentioning narrative concessions marrying system to setting you immediately made it about running a game session. Why did you do that? Because after giving this head fake toward engaging with thejeff - your immediate next step is to without prompting, pivot the conversation back to GM competence
I personally prefer encouraging gms to become better skilled, rather than designing with a focus on supporting mediocre gm ability.
“Designing with a focus on supporting mediocre GM ability” how exactly does that sentence relate to thejeffs statement? It doesn’t. You gave a cursory reference to his topic and are now shifting gears because it’s time to talk about what you want to talk about.
It's not for everyone, and I don't expect very many gms to ever be professional grade, but I think it is better for the hobby to have more people actually trying to be professional grade rather than just telling everyone to rely on tools designed for mediocrity.
We didn't get Elvis or Queen or Bach by telling people to rely on instruments to do the work and not worry about becoming actually skilled at the craft of music.
Now we’re off to the races with a conversation about professional grade GM’s and tools in the hands of virtuosos.
I accused you of intentionally derailing the conversation by pivoting to a discussion about GM competence. Which is exactly what the above demonstrates. You always pivot back to this topic, or to D&D 3.X.
The way you casually dismiss the topic at hand to then launch into a diatribe about your preferred topic is demonstrated by your own words. The same quotes don’t support your claim that you were furthering the topic thejeff presented. So what, logically, do these quotes prove? That you derailed the conversation with an unnecessary pivot to a separate topic, or that you were engaging in thejeffs conversation about genre conventions?
Your next paragraph mentions a comparison between PbtA and 3.X ( your other favorite topic) but all it does is act as you claiming the glory of 3.X. It is hardly a good faith engagement in the overall topic. As written it seems almost an afterthought
I appreciate that you claim you don’t have the same “sense of time” as the rest of us - but this is not your thread. When you reappear after days or weeks away it is not time to get us back on track and return us to the conversation you want to be having.
If you want to do that - create your own topic to do that in. If you want to engage in this thread - start doing so in a good faith manner that doesn’t treat the rest of us and the conversation we have in your absence as some insignificant diversion from your topic.
Soooo, lets talk about role play aids in systems like the classic alignment. A very divisive mechanic that brings many a gamer to tears just thinking about it. Others, have come to love alignment as an excellent morality shorthand for fleshing out NPCs and understanding their motives. For players, it can help guide their story as it unfolds at the table. It's also been abused by poor GMs and bad players. Unlike success mechanics, role play aids are subjective by their very nature.
What do y'all think about these types of sub-systems in TTRPGs? Do you like them? Do you hate them? Are they nice in the Fall but hell in the winter? Also, what other types of aids have you experienced?
I did try out Masks once. I recall a few items that seemed to me to be personality quirks, ideals, and flaws. Also, I recall having some descriptors indicating how my character should feel about other characters at the table. The RP was open ended for the player, but it was like having big arrows saying, "go this way, do these things" which some might find helpful, and others completely unnecessary.
Moving beyond the detail for, I truly hope, the last tome.
World of Darkness had multiple versions of a sliding scale morality trait. For some creatures it was called Humanity, for others it was integrity, and though it had many names it all worked more or less the same. The committing of certain acts that went against society or your own nature prompted a roll against your current rating on the scale. Success meant you were able to somehow rationalize what you had done and remained at your current level. Failure meant you slid further away from your current state - so if using humanity you grew more demonic and bestial and began to lose touch with your character as they started out.
This used to be connect to virtues and vices, which have been revamped into masks and dirges. Dirges are who you really are - your true nature. Masks are who you pretend to be in society. Playing toward either can gain you willpower to use, playing against either can place you teetering on the edge of losing your humanity.
As overwrought as that sounds, in play it works incredibly well.
I think this might be a good time for a brief side-mention of the very useful free browser plug-in "Paizo Campaign Tools," available for both Firefox and Chrome. One feature of this plug-in is the ability to blacklist specific usernames (and all aliases thereof). Any posts from blacklisted accounts simply will not appear when you look at threads in the forums.
I have blacklisted several problematic posters on the Paizo forums, and as a result, I find these forums far more pleasant to deal with.
I highly encourage others to use this tool and to do the same.
I do most of my forum browsing on my phone and sadly the extension didn’t work with the app version of chrome last time I tried it.
Soooo, lets talk about role play aids in systems like the classic alignment. A very divisive mechanic that brings many a gamer to tears just thinking about it. Others, have come to love alignment as an excellent morality shorthand for fleshing out NPCs and understanding their motives. For players, it can help guide their story as it unfolds at the table. It's also been abused by poor GMs and bad players. Unlike success mechanics, role play aids are subjective by their very nature.
What do y'all think about these types of sub-systems in TTRPGs? Do you like them? Do you hate them? Are they nice in the Fall but hell in the winter? Also, what other types of aids have you experienced?
I did try out Masks once. I recall a few items that seemed to me to be personality quirks, ideals, and flaws. Also, I recall having some descriptors indicating how my character should feel about other characters at the table. The RP was open ended for the player, but it was like having big arrows saying, "go this way, do these things" which some might find helpful, and others completely unnecessary.
Given your examples, I think that I take your meaning of "role play aids" to mean game mechanics that push the player into choosing to play out a scene in one way over another?
You cite D&D's Alignment as one such example.
I've always played alignment to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, it's not "I am this alignment, therefore I must act this manner," but rather "I act in this manner, therefore I am this alignment." Alignment can be a role-playing aid insofar as it's a prompt for the player to keep themselves on a consistent track. When I GM games that use alignment, I consider it a fluid descriptor, and will tell players out-of-character that they're acting in such a way that maybe a different alignment might be a better choice for their character. Alignment gets complicated in the D&D family of games, because a character's alignment has in-game mechanical repercussions.
We were talking about GURPS upthread. While GURPS doesn't have alignment, it does have a system of Disadvantages. When you take a Disadvantage at character creation, you have more points to spend on stats, skills, and Advantages, so it's generally in your best interest to take a few. These then provide both guidance and restrictions on your roleplaying. While some of these are physical (e.g. Bad Eyesight), most of them are mental, such as a Phobia, or a Code of Honor, or Greedy, or Impulsive. When you take a Disadvantage, you are taking a mechanical bonus (more points to spend) in exchange for limitations on your role-laying options. You are also giving the GM ammunition to use them against you in-play. [Note: Champions/HERO System uses very similar mechanics in this regard.]
Fate also has a system in place that defines your character and provides roleplaying prompts/restrictions: character Aspects. These are descriptions of your character that tell you, the GM, and the other players what sort of character they are and what makes them tick. Aspects are always true for your character, whether they are being invoked for mechanical effect or not. You generally start with four: a High Concept (i.e. one-line summary of the character), a Trouble (i.e. what the character struggles with), a Background (i.e. where you came from), and one more. For example: In a sci-fi game, maybe your character is the Hotshot Pilot of the Viridian Kestrel {high concept}, who's a Sucker for a Sob Story (Trouble), who was Valedictorian at the Imperial Naval Academy (background) and is now a Famous Lieutenant of the Resistance Forces (other). Your character's Aspects give you (and the GM and other players) a broad picture of what your character is about, and you can use the implications to read between the lines about how your character will react in a given situation or reveal other parts of their personality in-play.
You brought up Masks. That's a fascinating game: While it is a game about teenage super-heroes, the game focuses on questions of personal identity, coming of age, and growing up. Your character's stats are called "Labels" and are all about how your character perceives those aspects of who they are vs. how everyone else perceives them. While you will punch bad guys in the game, the game and its mechanics are about identity, figuring out who you really are, and being true to your honest self. You are absolutely right about the mechanics pushing characters to act in a certain way based on their Labels; the choice is to do the expected thing (which is mechanically easier) or to act against those expectations (which is harder but mechanically rewarding if successful). It's a very different game than, say, Mutants & Masterminds, which is a supers game about punching the bad guys!
I do most of my forum browsing on my phone and sadly the extension didn’t work with the app version of chrome last time I tried it.
I noticed that... it's why I pretty much only browse the Paizo forums from a computer. From my phone, I stick to other gaming spaces, such as Discord, Twitter, or the other (heavily-moderated) forums I'm active on.
It is because the topic is how much system matters, and how competent the GM is affects how much the system matters, and system design can affect GM competence, which creates a feedback loop that impacts how much system matters.
No the topic was generic systems. The statement was that system does matter to genre tropes.
The “feedback loop” and the topic of GM competence was purely what you injected into the conversation.
I see you are still accusing me of not thinking. I guess you couldn’t be bothered to read what I wrote and consider what your own words represented. You took a topic and pivoted to what you wanted to talk about. Just like you did with this latest post by taking a conversation about play aids which used alignment as an example of a play aid for those who might need clarification about what the topic is - into a multparagraph discussion of alignment. Do you have anything else to add other than the topic of alignment, or are you just discussing that because it is relevant to your specific interests.
This is a great opportunity to engage with the conversation in good faith by attempting to move the ball forward and discussing other game systems. Give it a try, you might like it.
In case anyone might be interested in trying out some different indie RPGs, The Gauntlet is running another quarterly Gauntlet Community Open Gaming event over the weekend of June 24-27, 2021.
I will be running sessions of the RPGs Trophy Dark, The Green Knight, Mörk Börg, and 10 Million HP Planet.
The con is free and open to anyone. Sign-ups start Tuesday 6/1/2021.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More on the journey...
I just ordered a copy of the Cortex Prime core rulebook, and am looking forward to sitting down with it this weekend. I've heard nothing but good things about this system from other gamers who share my outlook on RPGs. I'll share my thoughts on the game once I've had a chance to read and mull it over.
And, I've been listening to the "actual play" podcast Twelve Sided Stories, originally because they did a series of the RPG Swords of the Serpentine (which is currently one of my favorite RPGs). I continued listening after that series ended. They did a brief scifi Call of Cthulhu interlude, and now they're running a Vampire the Masquerade 5E campaign set in LA in the 1970s. I am intrigued by this game, and I'm now planning to buy a copy of the VTM 5E rulebook to give the World of Darkness another chance...
Im starting to get slightly interested in En world's "Level Up" which is their take on an advanced 5E. Anybody been paying attention to this?
Im starting to get slightly interested in En world's "Level Up" which is their take on an advanced 5E. Anybody been paying attention to this?
First I've heard of this! I'm not a big 5E fan, but that doesn't mean I'm above playing it. (I just bought Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft the other day.)
What's the skinny?
Im starting to get slightly interested in En world's "Level Up" which is their take on an advanced 5E. Anybody been paying attention to this?First I've heard of this! I'm not a big 5E fan, but that doesn't mean I'm above playing it. (I just bought Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft the other day.)
What's the skinny?
Im not an expert but, from what I heard its more character options and rule systems to make 5E a little less casual.
Huh. Looks like the idea is to add back in some amount of 3.5 crunch into 5E. (Not the direction I'd want to go in, but not every game is for everyone.)
Looks like a Marvel Multi-verse game is on the horizon. Im really curious what this "D616 system" is like.
Just read a really interesting Twitter thread about evaluating RPGs and writing game reviews that seems relevant to this discussion. I think it's really worth a read!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some good stuff, but god I hate twitter format.
"The premise here is: good games can lead to bad experiences and bad games can still lead to good experiences. So are they really good or bad? A good or bad gm can lead to a different experience. You can see hundreds of reddit threads on what to do with problem players."
I think this is a highlight. Plenty of reviewers drop a duce in the punch bowl at the slightest disagreement. Could be caused by a lackluster group, poor read of the rules, or just general taste. Which is why I try and make sure when critiquing mechanics I explain if, its because the math is bad, or because the feel is bad. A world of difference there.
"I want to take a game on its own terms. A lot of times games dont tell you who theyre for, so you have to figure it out in reverse. Who is the game talking to and how are they talking and what are they spending time talking about. Taste DOES matter in evaluating quality. "
I think this is the cardinal sin of system presentation by designers. Whoever is writing the rulebook really ought to answer questions on who specifically the game is for, and what specifically the game is supposed to do. If its a generic system, then explain how to flavor it for your chosen genre. Its crazy how little attention this gets but how much good will it can earn from the RPG community.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to take a game on its own terms. A lot of times games dont tell you who theyre for, so you have to figure it out in reverse. Who is the game talking to and how are they talking and what are they spending time talking about. Taste DOES matter in evaluating quality.
But in some sense its the intended audience taste, not mine. It isnt just a matter of experience or age. Its a matter of things like complexity or game weight, of theme and tone. Games have an opinion, whether stated or implied. Its my first job to figure out what that is.
Lets get more specific. Take PF2e. Pretend for a sec I exclusively like rules light games. It isnt fair or expected for me to call it crap because I only like light games. “Person who likes games under 50 pages hates 400+ pg book” isnt valuable for me to write or you to read.
Earlier in the thread than where I quoted, he stated that there's a world of difference between saying "This game is bad" and "This game isn't for me." And it can be a big problem when reviewers state the former but mean the latter.
And bigger problem is when reviewers don't even realize that there is a difference between those statements.
Sure, you say this and no one complains. I say this and people call me an idiot.Some good stuff, but god I hate twitter format.
"The premise here is: good games can lead to bad experiences and bad games can still lead to good experiences. So are they really good or bad? A good or bad gm can lead to a different experience. You can see hundreds of reddit threads on what to do with problem players."
No one called you an idiot, we said you were off topic. You didn't say the same thing either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didnt quote that part because this is a discussion about systems and your experience with them. Not about if they matter, because its assumed in the topic they do. If you want to make the claim good GMs make systems not matter, please start your own thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is talking about systems mattering, systems not mattering, the degree to which systems matter in general is not a topic of conversation in this thread except when presented by you
The reason the creator of the thread doesn’t get treated the way you do for posting what you think is something similar is:
A. Because when he presents it, it is germane to the current conversation and not a derail used to discuss his personal bugbear.
and
B. Because what he quoted and what you often express are not the same thing.
He quoted a rather benign statement that good GM’a can create bad gaming experiences and bad GM’a can create good gaming experiences. What you often claim is that great professional grade GM’s can overcome all limitations of system or setting to create transcendent gaming experiences, but that you recognize that very few GM’s will ever be as truly great as the standard you can see and you encourage all GM’s to seek out the non-existent academic programs to learn the greatness that only a small few can ever achieve.
One is a realistic statement about the state of our hobby as it exists, the other is a self aggrandizing standard that places the GM as the arbiter of all important going’s on at the table held to a standard that no one else in this thread agrees with you on.
The former a simple statement, the latter your personal preferred topic. GM excellence and mastery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you say this and no one complains. I say this and people call me an idiot.
Worry less about what people think of your opinions.
The nature of the internet is that most people who read what you write will disagree with you in some way.
The nature of gaming culture is people rarely chime in to agree, but often argue with posts they disagree with.
We’re all just shouting into the maelstrom. Most of you will disagree with my specific set of beliefs most of the time (to some degree or another) but every now and again there might be something useful in what I say. I rarely argue with people when they misunderstand me because gamers tend to go back (to posts I wrote poorly) and cut-and-paste/dissect/analyse/critique those off the cuff remarks to “prove” what I meant....even if I’m point blank telling them it’s not what I intended.
Is there any value in watching me write pages and pages defending my views against real or perceived attacks from people who don’t really understand what I mean?
Just put it out there and people can take what they like. It’ll be more fun for all concerned, I suspect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually not true. This did come up as a topic, and I think thejeff even actually said "system matters."
Yes thejeff said “system matters” as it relates to genre choices in our conversation about mixing and matching setting and system. You used that as an excuse to begin a conversation about whether or not systems matter.
The creator of this thread has now twice told you that such a conversation is off topic in their thread and asked you to take it elsewhere. Waiting a week to just restate the same thing you were dinged for last weekend doesn’t somehow magically make us forget what happened or remove our ability to reread the thread.
Incorrect, what he quoted was that "good games can create bad experiences, and bad games can create good experiences. A good or bad GM can lead to different experiences." That last sentence is something I have said many times for which people tell me is ridiculous
If you have said that, I guarantee it was couched in one of your multi paragraph threads and that what you were told was ridiculous was the content of the other meandering tract about GM competency.
Incorrect, I advocate for all to improve, and to not settle for mediocrity. There's a big difference. I don't know of any craft or art piece that is considered great where the creator settled for mediocrity.
And that advocacy is off topic to this thread and the thing that multiple people have suggested you take to your own thread. Further the argument against mediocrity is completely irrelevant because no one in this thread is arguing for mediocrity.
A misrepresentation. The GM is the engine behind the experience. The system and modules are like fuel and can be good or bad fuel, but a bad gm will result in a bad experience and no system nor module can ever change that. A great gm can likewise take a terrible system and a terrible module and still give players a great experience. Therefore, how great or terrible the experience is, logically, is determined primarily by the capabilities of the gm. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to show how a system/module can give a good experience despite the gm being terrible.
This is a realistic statement about the hobby as it exists today.
This is what is meant by both myself and the other person quoted.
How is it a misrepresentation when in the reply you claim nearly the exact thing I characterizing you as claiming?
“a standard that places the GM as the arbiter of all important going’s on at the table” and “The GM is the engine behind the experience” both say the same thing.
The GM is not THE engine behind the experience, the GM is a part of the experience. Despite your view that the GM is the arbiter of all things and the most essential element to gaming, others disagree. If you feel that you need evidence of a terrible GM not ruining the experience of a module I place into evidence my enjoyment of Curse of Strahd not being marred by one of the most robotic and uncharismatic GM’s I’ve ever played with.
Further: the quoted author did not say anything about the essentiality of GM authority so you claiming that they are in agreement with you is purely assumption on your part.
Also and maybe this needs to be bold and capitalized for you to see it clearly: IT WAS NOT THE ASPECT OF THE TWITTER THREAD THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING.
The GM is the center of everything that happens, so there isn't much to discuss where the gm is irrelevant. The players play by dealing with the gm, and players are told what is happening by the gm. Just about every interaction with the game happens through the gm.
And at some tables the GM for this weeks session is Bill and next week it’s Tom and they’re running from the same module. So which one of them needs to be constantly improving their GM skills. Which one is the center of everything if they’re both just running from the same module series? Your experience and your opinions ARE NOT UNIVERSAL.
It isn't some personal preffered topic. It's that you can't escape the role of gm being a major factor in gameplay and related to everything that happens in game.
You actually can escape it. This entire thread is a conversation about what systems we have played or are playing and the experiences we have with them. The only person who keeps making that about GM competency is you. The rest of use are having a conversation without discussing GM competency, except that you keep bringing it up. You prefer that the thread remain on that topic. Understand now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is the engine behind the experience.
The game is the engine behind the experience. The GM is the pilot.
The GM is the center of everything that happens, so there isn't much to discuss where the gm is irrelevant. The players play by dealing with the gm, and players are told what is happening by the gm. Just about every interaction with the game happens through the gm.
The PLAYERS are the center of everything that happens. The GM lays out the game by dealing with the PLAYERS. Every interaction with the game happens through the PLAYERS.