|
Necrofamicom posted:When someone complains about "Political Correctness" they're basically saying "Why CAN'T I say the n-word?" Oh no, oh no. Goons don't care one whit about political correctness. That they've chosen Grim's blog post as the rally point for the latest swarm is largely coincidence, and the fact that several of their RPGnet-side agents know it's an issue that will push buttons there. They are trolls, pure and simple. Think of them as a more petulant and less ominous version of Anonymous. The schoolyard bully brigade, to 4chan's faceless sociopathic mass. This is a site where profligate swearing and accusations of sexual perversion are considered valid points in an argument. A whole gaggle of shits who behave like a 13-year old who's just discovered the word "gently caress" and the existence of anime porn.
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
Maybe this isn't the best place to post this, but here it is. It's a problem I witnessed recently which left me close to astounded. I was helping out a friend who was developing his own game (he'd only really made scenarios before). He wanted to see how well another person could GM it, and since I was the only one on the planet who was even remotely familiar with the superpower world he'd made, it was up to me. He showed me the mechanics (of which there were little), and the game was going well. Then, for seemingly no reason, his had his character go out into the forest with an axe and try to chop down a tree. He told me his character knew nothing about it because, in that period of the future, nobody ever cut down a tree by hand. Odd, but with superpowers and future tech, okay. I mused a bit, wondering which of his game's skills chopping down a tree would fall under. He told me it wasn't covered by any skill anywhere. I went, "so, what, it's impossible to get better at?" And he said "yeah." No matter how many trees he cut down, the rules of his game explicitly inhibited him from ever getting better at it. Does anyone know of other such advancement-nullifying rules? I actually haven't much experience with a variety of games. It seems (to me) like a massive and obvious flaw. Am I wrong? Please tell me this isn't standard procedure.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
LOL. I didn't mean to say "you overstepped your bounds" or something like that, just meant to say you're wrong. It is relevant. It is relevant because a group of mostly non-gaming radicals with an agenda are trying to destroy a gaming company (mongoose), demanding money, and threatening that they and they alone should get to provide a censorial seal on what kind of games can or can't be produced, and who should or shouldn't get to produce them. If you think that's no big deal, and you'd have no problem with this gang of assholes, who have already proven themselves utterly willing to lie, and utterly unwilling to be reasonable or civil in any way, in order to get what they really want (which is of course POWER over the industry), becoming the guys who decide what content should or should not be allowed to reach your gaming table, then I think you're not seeing the big picture here. The Swine failed utterly at co-opting gaming with the notion of pseudo-artistry, then they failed utterly at co-opting gaming with the notion of pseudo-intellectualism; it seems like for at least some of the Swine, they're now changing tactic, and will try to co-opt gaming using the notion of pseudo-activism. RPGPundit
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Rasamune posted:Yes, because that's what's important: co-opting gaming. The Swine are any people for whom RPGs have, as their primary purpose, the conveyance of some kind of sense of personal self-worth. This need for gaining self-esteem out of RPGs manifests itself in creating and aggresively promoting the concept that RPGs are either "art" or "intellectual pursuit" rather than a mere game, and usually implying that someone who participates (to them it would not just be "playing") in an RPG is doing something of inherent value with their lives. In order to create this illusion, the value of "art" or "intellectual" has to totally superimpose itself over "fun" and "play". Likewise, and here's the insidious part, in order for the Swine to be able to gain this sense of self-worth from what any sane person would consider a meaningless game (meaningless good fun, but still utterly meaningless and certainly not self-validating) the Swine must attempt to utterly destroy the concept that RPGs should be played for fun as a mere game, and must promote the concept that they (the Swine) are the special elite who truly understand RPGs, and actively work against the popularity of RPGs. So the Swine have it as part of their make-up, conscious of the fact or not, the destruction of the RPG industry, and indeed of the hobby as a hobby or as play. All this for their own selfish, low, contemptible ends.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:So, stupid question, but what is meant by "storygamer" as opposed to someone who players RPGs? For the first couple decades after D&D, virtually all roleplaying games looked fundamentally similar: There was a GM who controlled the game world, there were players who each controlled a single character (or occasionally a small stable of characters which all “belonged” to them), and actions were resolved using diced mechanics. Starting in the early ’90s, however, we started to see some creative experimentation with the form. And in the last decade this experimentation has exploded: GM-less game. Diceless games. Players taking control of the game world beyond their characters. (And so forth.) But as this experimentation began carrying games farther and farther from the “traditional” model of a roleplaying game, there began to be some recognition that these games needed to be distinguished from their progenitors: On the one hand, lots of people found that these new games didn’t scratch the same itch that roleplaying games did and some responded vituperatively to them as a result. On the other hand, even those enthusiastic about the new games began searching for a new term to describe their mechanics — “story game”, “interactive drama”, “mutual storytelling”, and the like. In some cases, this “search for a label” has been about raising a fence so that people can tack up crude “KEEP OUT” signs. I don’t find that particularly useful. But as an aficionado of Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics, I also understand the power of proper definitions: They allow us to focus our discussion and achieve a better understanding of the topic. But by giving us a firm foundation, they also set us free to experiment fully within the form. For example, people got tired of referring to “games that are a lot like Dungeons & Dragons“, so they coined the term “roleplaying game” and it suddenly became a lot easier to talk about them (and also market them). It also allowed RPGs to become conceptually distinct from “wargames”, which not only eliminated quite a bit of confusion (as people were able to separate “good practices from wargames” from “good practices for roleplaying games”), but also allowed the creators of RPGs to explore a lot of new options. Before we begin looking at how games like Shock: Social Science Fiction, Dread, Wushu, and Microscope are different from roleplaying games, however, I think we first need to perfect our understanding of what a roleplaying game is and how it’s distinguished from other types of games. WHAT IS A ROLEPLAYING GAME? Roleplaying games are defined by mechanics which are associated with the game world. Let me break that down: Roleplaying games are self-evidently about playing a role. Playing a role is about making choices as if you were the character. Therefore, in order for a game to be a roleplaying game (and not just a game where you happen to play a role), the mechanics of the game have to be about making and resolving choices as if you were the character. If the mechanics of the game require you to make choices which aren’t associated to the choices made by the character, then the mechanics of the game aren’t about roleplaying and it’s not a roleplaying game. To look at it from the opposite side, I’m going to make a provocative statement: When you are using dissociated mechanics you are not roleplaying. Which is not to say that you can’t roleplay while playing a game featuring dissociated mechanics, but simply to say that in the moment when you are using those mechanics you are not roleplaying. I say this is a provocative statement because I’m sure it’s going to provoke strong responses. But, frankly, it just looks like common sense to me: If you are manipulating mechanics which are dissociated from your character — which have no meaning to your character — then you are not engaged in the process of playing a role. In that moment, you are doing something else. (It’s practically tautological.) You may be multi-tasking or rapidly switching back-and-forth between roleplaying and not-roleplaying. You may even be using the output from the dissociated mechanics to inform your roleplaying. But when you’re actually engaged in the task of using those dissociated mechanics you are not playing a role; you are not roleplaying. I think this distinction is important because, in my opinion, it lies at the heart of what defines a roleplaying game: What’s the difference between the boardgame Arkham Horror and the roleplaying game Call of Cthulhu? In Arkham Horror, after all, each player takes on the role of a specific character; those characters are defined mechanically; the characters have detailed backgrounds; and plenty of people have played sessions of Arkham Horror where people have talked extensively in character. I pick Arkham Horror for this example because it exists right on the cusp between being an RPG and a not-RPG. So when people start roleplaying during the game (which they indisputably do when they start talking in character), it raises the provocative question: Does it become a roleplaying game in that moment? On the other hand, I’ve had the same sort of moment happen while playing Monopoly. For example, there was a game where somebody said, “I’m buying Boardwalk because I’m a shoe. And I like walking.” Goofy? Sure. Bizarre? Sure. Roleplaying? Yup. Let me try to make the distinction clear: When we say “roleplaying game”, do we just mean “a game where roleplaying can happen”? If so, then I think the term “roleplaying game” becomes so ridiculously broad that it loses all meaning. (Since it includes everything from Monopoly to Super Mario Brothers.) Rather, I think the term “roleplaying game” only becomes meaningful when there is a direct connection between the game and the roleplaying. When roleplaying is the game. It’s very tempting to see all of this in a purely negative light: As if to say, “Dissociated mechanics get in the way of roleplaying and associated mechanics don’t.” But it’s actually more meaningful than that: The act of using an associated mechanic is the act of playing a role. As I wrote in the original essay on dissociated mechanics, all game mechanics are — to varying degrees — abstracted and metagamed. For example, the destructive power of a fireball is defined by the number of d6′s you roll for damage; and the number of d6′s you roll is determined by the caster level of the wizard casting the spell. If you asked a character about d6′s of damage or caster levels, they’d have no idea what you were talking about (that’s the abstraction and the metagaming). But they could tell you what a fireball was and they could tell you that casters of greater skill can create more intense flames during the casting of the spell (that’s the association). So a fireball has a direct association to the game world. Which means that when, for example, you make a decision to cast a fireball spell you are making a decision as if you were your character — in making the mechanical decision you are required to roleplay (because that mechanical decision is directly associated to your character’s decision). You may not do it well. You’re not going to win a Tony Award for it. But in using the mechanics of a roleplaying game, you are inherently playing a role. WHAT IS A STORYTELLING GAME? So roleplaying games are defined by associated mechanics — mechanics which are associated with the game world, and thus require you to make decisions as if you were your character (because your decisions are associated with your character’s decisions). Storytelling games (STGs), on the other hand, are defined by narrative control mechanics: The mechanics of the game are either about determining who controls a particular chunk of the narrative or they’re actually about determining the outcome of a particular narrative chunk. Storytelling games may be built around players having characters that they’re proponents of, but the mechanical focus of the game is not on the choices made as if they were those characters. Instead, the mechanical focus is on controlling the narrative. Wushu offers a pretty clear-cut example of this. The game basically has one mechanic: By describing a scene or action, you earn dice. If your dice pool generates more successes than everyone else’s dice pools, you control the narrative conclusion of the round. Everyone in Wushu is playing a character. That character is the favored vehicle which they can use to deliver their descriptions, and that character’s traits will even influence what types of descriptions are mechanically superior for them to use. But the mechanics of the game are completely dissociated from the act of roleplaying the character. Vivid and interesting characters are certainly encouraged, but the act of making choices as if you were the character — the act of actually roleplaying — has absolutely nothing to do with the rules whatsoever. That’s why Wushu is a storytelling game, not a roleplaying game. More controversially, consider Dread. The gameplay here looks a lot like a roleplaying game: All the players are playing individual characters. There’s a GM controlling/presenting the game world. When players have their characters attempt actions, there’s even a resolution mechanic: Pull a Jenga block. If the tower doesn’t collapse, the action succeeds. If the tower does collapse, the character is eliminated from the story. But I’d argue that Dread isn’t a roleplaying game: The mechanic may be triggered by characters taking action, but the actual mechanic isn’t associated with the game world. The mechanic is entirely about controlling the pace of the narrative and participation in the narrative. I’d even argue that Dread wouldn’t be a roleplaying game if you introduced a character sheet with hard-coded skills that determined how many blocks you pull depending on the action being attempted and the character’s relevant skill. Why? Because the resolution mechanic is still dissociated and its still focused on narrative control and pacing. The fact that the characters have different characteristics in terms of their ability to be used to control that narrative is as significant as the differences between a rook and a bishop in a game of Chess. GETTING FUZZY Another way to look at this is to strip everything back to freeform roleplaying: Just people sitting around, pretending to be characters. This isn’t a roleplaying game because there’s no game — it’s just roleplaying. Now add mechanics: If the mechanics are designed in such a way that the mechanical choices you’re making are directly associated with the choices your character is making, then it’s probably a roleplaying game. If the mechanics are designed in such a way that the mechanical choices you’re making are about controlling or influencing the narrative, then it’s probably a storytelling game. But this gets fuzzy for two reasons. First, few games are actually that rigid in their focus. For example, if I add an action point mechanic to a roleplaying game it doesn’t suddenly cease to be a roleplaying game just because there are now some mechanical choices being made by players that aren’t associated to character decisions. When playing a roleplaying game, most of us have agendas beyond simply “playing a role”. (Telling a good story, for example. Or emulating a particular genre trope. Or exploring a fantasy world.) And dissociated mechanics have been put to all sorts of good use in accomplishing those goals. Second, characters actually are narrative elements. This means that you can see a lot of narrative control mechanics which either act through, are influenced by, or act upon characters who may also be strongly associated with or exclusively associated with a particular player. When you combine these two factors, you end up with a third: Because characters are narrative elements, players who prefer storytelling games tend to have a much higher tolerance for roleplaying mechanics in their storytelling games. Why? Because roleplaying mechanics allow you to control characters; characters are narrative elements; and, therefore, roleplaying mechanics can be enjoyed as just a very specific variety of narrative control. On the other hand, people who are primarily interested in roleplaying games because they want to roleplay a character tend to have a much lower tolerance for narrative control mechanics in their roleplaying games. Why? Because when you’re using dissociated mechanics you’re not roleplaying. At best, dissociated mechanics are a distraction from what the roleplayer wants. At worst, the dissociated mechanics can actually interfere and disrupt what the roleplayer wants (when, for example, the dissociated mechanics begin affecting the behavior or actions of their character). This is why many aficionados of storytelling games don’t understand why other people don’t consider their games roleplaying games. Because even traditional roleplaying games at least partially satisfy their interests in narrative control, they don’t see the dividing line. Explaining this is made even more difficult because the dividing line is, in fact, fuzzy in multiple dimensions. Plus there’s plenty of historical confusion going the other way. (For example, the “Storyteller System” is, in fact, just a roleplaying game with no narrative control mechanics whatsoever.) It should also be noted that while the distinction between RPGs and STGs is fairly clear-cut for players, it can be quite a bit fuzzier on the other side of the GM’s screen. (GMs are responsible for a lot more than just roleplaying a single character, which means that their decisions — both mechanical and non-mechanical — were never strictly focused on roleplaying in the first place.) Personally, I enjoy both sorts of games: Chocolate (roleplaying), vanilla (storytelling), and swirled mixtures of both. But, with that being said, there are times when I just want some nice chocolate ice cream; and when I do, I generally find that dissociated mechanics screw up my fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:My mod voice is red.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
Please don't mention his name a third time, you know what happens if we do that
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Ask me five years ago could you play a demon in a game I was running and (power levels permitting) I wouldn't have blinked. Tell me five years ago that I couldn't play a vile evil priest of darkness in your game and I would have told you to man up and grow a pair. As long as we're not talking about the worst forms of vileness which plague the real world, I have a natural aversion to censorship and the control which well-meaning people can often exert over others (more outside the hobby than in it) in an attempt to help them. "Spaying the cat is the responsible thing to do." Well, obviously there's a very respectable argument in favour of that proposition (and the RSPCA, and the vet, would presumably agree), but personally I just can't help seeing myself in the cat's shoes. If I were the cat, I really, truly wouldn't want to be spayed. Probably, were I a cat-owner, I would end up spaying the cat, if I had one, at any rate after her fourteenth litter and probably well before that point. But I wouldn't feel one bit comfortable with it. Where am I going with this? The sort of control which dictates to gamers that they must play heroic, goodly characters, is something which to me (and this is not a comment on the unimpeachable motives or character of the people who are exercising that control) feels stifling, and even (in a very subjective way, again no reflection on anyone's motives) insidious. Or, felt. Lately you see I've been focusing laser-like on the joys of immersion in character. Being your character while the game is on. Seeing the world through his eyes. It probably helps that a lot of the roleplay I do these days is LARP, though by no means all of it. I've always (since the age of 7) gamed to be my character for a while, but I've understood it* so much better over the last five years or so and fine-tuned my gaming to that end. * meaning, my own enjoyment of that style of gaming And now I find that I'm just not comfortable with the idea of someone playing an evil character week in week out for an extended period of time. If you're playing the same character week in week out in a truly immersive way, isn't there a risk of their personality subtly influencing yours? Of you training yourself to see the world the way they do? I think my current view is that maybe it's not just evil characters that are problematic here, but any character with pronounced traits who you play week in week out. Say for instance that your character is compulsively forthright, but you happen to be a salesman in real life. No disrespect intended to salespeople, they may do a fine job, but some of them may have to put a bit of a spin on things, and that's fine, it's what the public expects, it's like "puff" in advertising, so please don't anyone be thinking that this is some kind of a group attack on all those lovely salespeople (or, indeed, on spindoctors). But what if some of that compulsive forthrightness seeps into your own personality by osmosis? What if you find yourself becoming uncomfortable with the "spin" (socially acceptable to most people, in all honesty) which you have to put on your products to sell them? And then find that your position at work is untenable, or that your employer reaches that conclusion first when your sales figures dip? Why should your arbitrary choices at Char Gen and in developing your character lead to a potential permanent impact on your personality? [Please don't take it as an assumed Gospel truth that they will. I just feel more and more, as my gut feeling, that it's a real possibility.] Couldn't that be as insidious and far-reaching as any kind of "this is for your own good" external censorship and control? {And obviously if the character's pronounced traits are hideously vile, so much the worse, and roleplaying certain kinds of vile stuff - prurient stuff in particular - might if anything be thought to be more likely to be an influence on your personality than roleplaying other stuff.} A pinch of salt to take this post with:- we are all transformed by our experiences, whatever they might be. Be it immersive roleplay, watching TV or going shopping, or even simply eating breakfast, you can't move from your chair without it potentially affecting your personality. And playing evil characters, or having the option there for players to do so (so you don't necessarily know if someone in your group is playing one), adds colour, variety, depth and intricacy to the game. So I guess a balanced view might be this. It's better that the individual gamer play a variety of different characters more or less contemporaneously. Don't just play the one character week in week out. Alternate characters regularly. That may mean alternating games. But I don't think playing one character week in week out for a long period of time is necessarily healthy. {This policy also has the side-benefit of making you a bit more chilled out about bad things happening to your character, IME.} This is just gut feeling. I have no formal psychology or psychiatry training whatsoever. This thread is probably of nil relevance to those "hippy indie" gamers (as many of them call themselves) for whom the game is about "story" as opposed to (the particular kind of) "trad" gamers who care about immersion in character. Why? Because IMHO, YMMV, a truly storygamey approach to roleplay is less transformative. But this only holds if the gamers are genuinely focused on story to the point of relative indifference to the fate of their character. If you are playing games which get called storygames but you are doing so in an immersive way, you're in the same boat as a trad gamer for this general topic. To put this in context, I've been a roleplayer since I was 7, which was not far off 30 years ago. I did take a break from it around the time I was at uni. I mostly play trad games including some I have written myself. Probably my gaming is 80% LARP, 20% tabletop at the moment, but that pendulum swings back and forth. Not long ago it was closer to 50/50 and a lot of the LARP wasn't puristic. Thoughts? Comments? Questions? Anecdotes? DISCLAIMER:- not medical advice. If you actually suspect your character is taking over your life, er, maybe you should see a shrink and quit gaming. I'm not claiming to have the right solution for that particular problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
I think this does leave out some cool things about postanime-specific themes like the sort of universal polyglot sexiness.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
So I asked Google plus this question: What, to your mind, is the difference between old Sword & Planet science-fantasy (John Carter, Carcosa, Hawkwind, Planet Algol) and newer Last Three Levels of the Japanese Video Game style science-fantasy (Lunar, Eberron, Final Fantasy). Are there any thematic/philosophical differences? Or is it all just art direction? And is Moebius the Rosetta Stone that translates here? Here are some highlights from the discussion from various people (imagine quotation marks around all this stuff): BASICS: OLD/NEW SCIENCE/MAGIC -To my mind, the Sword & Planet stuff evokes a feeling of savage struggle (Burroughs) and swashbuckling (Flash Gordon) that is reminiscent of historical and sword & sorcery fiction in tone and action. Technology is largely window dressing, an exotic element blending in with cultural stylings (thinking arabesque blending with Art Deco here). Heavy Metal magazine and Marvel's Epic Illustrated, along with Moebius, bridge that gap, sometimes adding a touch of psychedelia. Video game science fantasy, on the other hand (as well as a lot of the steampunk and cyberpunk aesthetic, as an aside) seem to fetishize the blend of technology and fantasy. -This may just be me, but I've gotten a general "science/industry bad" in the old Sword and Planet stuff (in a "What hath man meddled with! What horrors hath he wrought upon the rest of us!") while a lot of the newer stuff is more "Invention, science and progress is good, even if occasionally used for bad things!" -Tech (or magitech) seems to be ubiquitious/understood in more modern treatments while in older ones it seems to retain its unknown, mysterious culture as the province of madmen and freaks. -I don't think they are similar--except in some surface ways, perhaps. Sword & Planet is (from the aughts to the seventies) science presented in such a way that it resembles fantasy. It mostly maintained it was science. Eberron and Final Fantasy are expressly fantasy, but where magic is able to reproduce technological results. (this is Cam Banks:) -Sword & Planet and Sword & Sorcery both had their "bad guy" forces. In the former, it's industry and science, yeah, unless it's been redeemed (but even then, it threatens to go out of control). In the latter, it's sorcery and magic and so on. In both cases I think the heroes are raw, skilled, courageous types who oppose all of that. In the new stuff you're talking about, rarely is there the "this is totally out of our control!" approach, rather, it's "this is Evil (tm) but our version of this is totally Good (tm)." -I don't know if there is a common rosetta stone. Moebius translates between Barsoomian and Moorcockian. Amano drew both Elric and FF. METAPHORS AND WHATNOT -(Me) I often wonder if I knew more about anime whether there was more stuff that had that sexy 70s bad trip darkness. I definitely get the impression it was there but weirdly hidden--like how Japan's Black Sabbath equivalent was called "Flower Travelling Band" and is totally metal but...they're called Flower Travelling Band. Thinking about it...I think actually an attitude toward sex is a huge part of it. In old sword and planet there's a sort of satan/oldness/evil/femme fatale/sex=danger/mystery mentality whereas in the newer stuff there is often lots of sexiness but it's more about a sort of pre-married young people back-and-forth social dynamic. Actual sex is kinda off the table as a theme but flirting is everywhere. -Seriously older : orientalism, decadence, tension of exhaustion/vigor 70's-derived : drugs, rocker culture, dropoutitude -Well with the new stuff there is also that "One true love" stuff.. Which I don't know how prevalent that was in Sword and Planet stuff. -Not un-prevalent. -(Me again) Reconsidering my previous comment, there's tentacle hentai. Get rid of the high school and Urotsukidoji is very sword and planet. it's the sense of unfamiliarity that's missing in the later stuff. I think sword and planet sees the future as mysterious whereas the newer stuff sees it as just a setting. -New school science fantasy, at least the Final Fantasy style stuff, is always caked on layers of metaphors and borrowed symbolism at the expense of everything else. THE HISTORY OF WEIRD IDEAS -It might be that the idea of endless technological innovation (at what was once considered breakneck pace by these writers grandparents) is now taken for granted. Edgar Rice Burroughs would have been around people who for the most part, lived the same as their grandparents had, who lived the same as theirs, etc etc, on a technological basis. Burroughs would thus be part of the first generation to see the shift of constant innovation (technologically) and it would have been weird, mysterious and somewhat alien. But now the idea that technology isn't a constant engine forward would seem alien to folks. In a sense the idea of a future without huge amounts of new technology would seem alien (barring a disaster) while a swathe of new gizmo's is just another setting. -(me) Here's one: in the old stuff technology is usually from the past (post apoc) (post '50s) (golden age behind us) (mysterious). In the new stuff it is what we are working in now (full metal alchemist)(new merging of human and machine etc)(speculative, experimental, not mysterious). And…mmmm..yet to see a non-trippy japanese sci fantasy, but I do think the obsession with symbolism does "normalize" a lot of it.-I would almost base that on the space race. Before it was a case where our technology seemed inferior to the possibilities of science. Once we put a man on the fuckin' moon though? gently caress those Atlanteans, even if they existed they obviously suck since I don't see any Atlantis flags on the moon (except more eloquent). I think the space age has really shifted mankind's perception of our place in history and the specialness of this moment in time. -(Re: Trippiness) well there's a difference between "What i learned from this metaphorical experience" and "I am in the psychic now"....well it's not psychedelic when you go back to your rural village and petals are falling and you meditate upon how your journey brought you back to this place - the "trippy" is an illusion that breaks. (Me) -And what about Warhammer 40k? Is that an in-between? Or does the long shadow of Orwell make it uniquely British?…the exoticism is kinda long boot-face-stamped out of 40k I think. What's the cosmic other in 40k? It's loving evil and chaos and Satan and symbolic and you fight it. -But i think all the stuff I see that's any good is sometimes "trippy" in that second way, even if it's just monster design...and well 40k has a difference in tone from Moorcock (or even Nemesis) but the difference isn't Britishness - plenty of sword-trip is British Probably the difference is basically Thatcher. GAMIFICATION, THE '80's, STAR WARS, D&D -The difference may have something to do with 80s-D&D (and relatives) that contribute to a more vanilla fantasy/quest form and back to the rural village skeleton...so, i wonder, is a lot of the difference "gamification?" (Me) Well the positiveness and lack of sex is definitely gamification. Possible Genealogy: Sword and planet ---->D&D and Star Wars -------->Final Fantasy------>postAnime sci-fantasy. Are D&D and Star Wars the translators here? The "force" is the only overt fantasy element in Star Wars really. -Yeah i think D&D (and D&D-derived video games like Wizardry) and Star wars are a big part of the transition Star Wars is cool but so not psychedelic. the layers and metaphor of JRPG video games, and their RPG descendents are often sort of the force writ baroque. -I think the whole Human-Spirit > Everything aspect of a lot of anime (and by proxy, japanese video games) makes the mysterious unknown really hard to pull off. Its hard to take Azathoth as seriously when a little girl can take him because she is best friends with everyone. -And is Cole right in saying that The Human Spririt is basically derived from (maybe a slight post-Taoization) of The Force? -i feel like should also say i'm not painting a broad swath of "anything an anime has touched, ever" but a more narrow sense of "the type of fantasy especially in western RPGs and related media that takes its aesthetic from console JRPG". Like, Eberron, while cool, is not very trippy outsde of a few peripheral elements. Whereas Nausicaa goes BONNNNGGGGGGGG, -But Nausicaa goes BONNNGGGG about a single little girl and like one kind of monster and with an eco-theme. Whereas all of Eberron is like Srslymorecrazyeveywhere (because D&D). -Yeah and (because D&D) is a factor there, and Eberron is a whole setting which is designed to facilitiate many character's separated epics. -It gets crazy there in the last few volumes. I mean, it pitches human progress as any kind of ideal and has a huge war is hell subplot and Evas and deathmold. -Well Lodoss War is just 80s Vanilla D&D-The Movie (me) -Is the sheer disturbingness of Evangelion a sort of return-of-the-repressed sexdeathsatan metaphors from the Sword and Planet era? Like: hey Good Guy in Good/Bad postgame scifantasy Land remember when Evil meant something? AAAAAAAh brainFRY Is Willow basically an anime? -Willow is the lord of the rings made by the guy who came up with The Force so it's an expression of the same ideas. -Evangelion is pretty tangential but obviously has influences from New Wave SF that was read by the same people who took drugs and read the 70's S&S/P. -It's got robots and mysticism, if Star Wars is relevant then Evangelion is. I think the space as metaphor for mental interior and/or human destiny theme is reallllllly important -I think the disturningness of Eva has more to do with the creator actually having a nervous breakdown near the end of the series. -Ok "Well I know the creator's breakdown in Evangelion was a real thing, but all of this "fantasy" stuff is psychological: Is the lack of an expression of "the dark side" in the genre ("the Zentraedi are our friends and love love after all!") and the culture that created it relevant to that, though? I think maybe. The creator's work and breakdown are both an expression of something psychological as are the tropes of the genre. PROGRESS? -To address the original question, I've always seen the major thematic divide being that S&P seem to be more about a sort of "stagnation" (not sure if that's the best word) where the world has been this way for centuries, and Eberron-style worlds that have for of a feel of "progression" where there's obvious signs of advancement and change. Freeport's another example of the later style. -What makes "Progression" exciting for a game setting? in the context of a (relatively trad) game, I think, progression isn't interactable with (unless you time travel to the future or something) while decline is, you interact with pre-decline stuff constantly. I guess maybe if you have a lot of people furiously fighting progress that you can kill? Is it just "optimism?" Thats a buzzword I see a lot in game-designer talk that, I admit it, I'm an rear end in a top hat, but is not thrilling to me. But I wouldn't call Eberron "optimistic" anyway so maybe i'm totally out of bounds here -I would call Keith Baker optimistic (as a human I know personally). So maybe I tend to kinda see Eberron as more "full of intrigue and adventure" than "full of decadent machination" because of that--which is just a slight turn of the coin. However, I think the whole "You can play the monster and s/he can be good" is a very positivey post-Star Wars theme compared to S&P which is more about cultural barriers even when the alien is helpful. Does the game-friendlyness of post D&D post-videogame fantasy automatically make it more positive partially because every Other has to be a playable (therefore possibly good) race? -Probably. See also : Worf. -Or maybe it's more boring than all this: the popularity of Tolkien and pop "positive" sci fi (i.e. Star Trek, comics) simply has made all later-era sci fantasy more heroic and optimistic. -Also the boom for this stuff was the late 80s when US cultural exports were poo poo-eating-grin positive. -Can we blame toy-sellers for getting rid of satanic evil then? He-man and the rest? -Though i'm not saying "satanic evil" so much as sexdrugsfuzzdistortionbrood. -I think "Progressiveness" is something you can interact with, but it's done at the expectation/setting-buy-in level that at a real "character" level. Like, I have a hard time believing that a setting like FR or Elder Scrolls can be advanced 100 years but not actually have any societal or technological advancement. Although that's probably my mother the Social Studies teacher talking as well. -I think Cole's saying "as a PC, you don't experience that progress as an event in the campaign" whereas you do find (and use) old stuff from back in the day. Though I'm not sure I agree --"brilliant new discoveries" appear a lot in games and things and are often mcguffins. (me) -I think this does leave out some cool things about postanime-specific themes like the sort of universal polyglot sexiness. You could kind of see the muscley shirtlessness of He Man and the endless "love" themes in She Ra as trying (in perhaps a clumsy American way) to get at the same flirty themes that a lot of anime has. (Keith Baker, author of Eberron shows up) -While I'm late to the conversation, I agree that while there is "ancient and mysterious magic" in Eberron, one of the underlying themes that matters to me is the continuous evolution of magic as a science and a force that affects society - which is a contrast to science/magic as a tool primarily of ancient times or dark forces. There are certainly dark elements to the world - uneasy balance between industry & politics, ancient evils on the rise, all manner of intrigues - but it is a world where new innovations are being developed every day. With that said, I think that if you took a group of soldiers from the Last War and transported them deep in the middle of unexplored Xen'drik, you've got a great foundation for a Barsoom-y campaign... and in such a campaign you can find, for example, dark elves living in an ancient city of the giants and using magic they can no longer replicate on their own. Whether or not it's a regular event depends on the direction the DM decides to go, but advancing magic is certainly a theme that can play an important role in an Eberron game... I wrote a piece about Dragonmarked industrial espionage a few weeks ago. -i suppose you could advance the timeline by months between sessions and say "this year, they invented the telegraph," this year they invented the blimp," "this year they invented the camera" i.e. "progress-via-equpiment-list-update" -Great Pendragon Campaign does that. (Keith again) -I will say that given that magic-as-science is a theme of Eberron, I am frustrated by how little depth the history of magical innovation currently has. There are dates for a few key discoveries, but not a lot of focus on the key innovators and discoveries (aside from those of the present). It's certainly something I want to do more with in my next world. -I think maybe there is a cultural movement timing differentiation thing going on - Eva was late 90s, Next Gen late 80s ... the positivist thing you could say starts with Macross in the Eighties, but before that the 70s/early 80s fantasy and sci-fi anime has a much more pulpy, nihilistic bent - stuff like Cobra, Fist of the NorthStar, Go Nagai &c (Me) -However, I don't think it all reduces to: the 70s are the 70s the 80s are the 80s the 90s are the 90s. I think there's an interesting question of what, exactly, the supernatural and space are supposed to represent to people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I mean no one gives a poo poo how Miyamoto intended Mario to turn out yeah poo poo dude it's a good thing nobody ever interviewed Miyamoto or hired him to consult on video games and ask him about his design knowledge or cared about video game design history good news! This time we can say it and it's not just in jest. It's you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Yes, it would be exactly like your analogy if anything involved was anything like your analogy. People are asking a dude (I don't even like) questions about playing old D&D and playing with the dude who helped create D&D. Nobody's hiring him to do anything. It's not weird to be interested in how the hobby began or what it was like from the view of a dude on the sides, and even if all of the design was poo poo (and not all of it was) it's still cool stuff to know and we can learn from those mistakes. It's you. You're the
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Well on one side we have like OSR dudes coming to irrational conclusions in rabid support of a dude and then on the other we have Red Mage coming to irrational conclusions in hatred of a dude so no I guess not, it's grognards all the way down
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
There are two sides. no middle. no alternatives. You either have a rabid irrational hatred for gygax and everything associated, or you're fondling a copy of Carcosa as I type this. Is Gygax worship bad? Yes. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Does Agents of S.W.I.N.G. do the job of capturing the feel that it is going for? I think so. The choice of the Fate system was a good fit for this system, and the further customizations to it by James help to reinforce this. Fate embraces the swinging pulpiness of the setting and at the same time enforces the setting in the minds of the players. I cannot recommend strongly enough that people buy this game. Am I doing this review for political reasons? Absolutely, but not for the reasons that some may think. When creators are censored or pressured into making games out of political pressure that is ultimately not good for gaming in the long run. People cannot design if they are constantly looking over their shoulder, which is what happens in an environment of anger and hate. Once one publisher or designer crumbles, it is only a matter of time before the mobs move on to something else that they don't like, using their anger and fear as a justification to stifle further creativity. Keep in mind that, should you decide to comment, this is not a public venue. It is my blog and my rules. I will allow, disallow and delete whatever comments that I want. The Thumper rule is in effect: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
RGPsite is cheating and feeds into their need for attention
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
So I was talking to people and thinking about this Martin essay. In it, I basically lay out this hypothesis that the reason why alotta the people who prefer newer, more focused, game designs with really clear "this-is-in/this-is-out" rules do so is because they are kinda socially awkward and so they like that these games put stuff into rules rather than relying on the players and GM to socially negotiate stuff like "Ok, well how much detail do I have to go into to describe how I am tying some iron spikes together to make an impromptu fish-hook and can I trust you that you'll rule fairly on that?"* I'm thinking mostly of the ones who are so attached to these kind of rules they can't figure out why anyone sane wouldn't want them. Now I'm realizing I didn't fully think something out there: I think it's not necessarily that (or only that) some socially awkward people like rules-as-written because they're kinda technocratic thinkers who like technocratic solutions. It may also be--and feel free to let me know how you feel here-- that these gamers are painfully shy people who see social confrontation in itself (regardless of the subject or stakes) as pretty scary and as something that kinda hurts. Or that at least takes a few of their hit points to do. If you're them a game demanding (or just implying) that changes to standard operating procedure be socially negotiated is kind of offensive in itself. Like I want to play a leopardperson and I have to ask? And I don't have the rulebook to back me up? gently caress. That is in itself the game kind of harassing me. In other words, to Shy Guy, the group assuming something as a default constitutes a sort of de facto pressure to go along with it. "GM's discretion" is a problem not (or not just) because you don't trust the GM but because putting your 2 cents into that discussion is socially risky. Further, if you were Shy: the Content As Written of any gamebook becomes extremely important (way more important than any DIY D&D person could instinctively understand) because not going along with the assumptions of the game will require some social negotiating and social negotiating hurts. (As opposed to being neutral or even fun, like it is most of the time for most of us because we're talking to our friends--or at least people with common interests--about a topic of common interest.) If there's a scary idea in that gamebook or a rule you don't like, that is going to be way more of a problem to negotiate away if you're a shy person. Shy guy doesn't even want to go near having to ask exactly how rituals in this Carcosa game are going to be handled. If you're shy "expectations" (of all kinds) are not just things you blandly steamroll ten seconds into the first session, they're things it will cost you something emotionally to violate. And if you are Shy and assume most gamers are like you (and maybe they are)(and which a Shy Guy or Gal could easily assume because if you're really shy you may only want to play with other shy people or may end up mostly playing in organized things with strangers) then wanting to play a game might seem to you like--of course--wanting to play the standard game. Because changing rules is hard and painful and who would wanna do that? It might also explain why people get So. loving. Angry. about games with some mechanic or setting bit they don't like. If the game has lizard-dogs you are gonna have to confront someone or have lizard dogs, if a game has Vancian magic you are going to have to confront someone or use Vancian magic, if a game has paladins as merely a splatbook class you are going to have to confront someone about it being a splatbook class. It's all scary. Now since I am really really not Shy Guy and neither are my players (they sure as gently caress let me know when they don't like something), I am aware how far out on a limb I am going. I am aware how many assumption I'm making and how I haven't tested any of them. Again: all this is a guess. So I am asking you all. Does this make sense? Does it match your experience? And if you are the shy person and I have missed something crucial, please see this as a serious attempt to figure out what that is. I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Mikan posted:So I was talking to people and thinking about this Martin essay. Bart: Only geeks sit in the front seat. From now on you sit in the back row. And that's not just on the bus. It goes for school and church, too. Martin Prince: Why? Bart: So no one can see what you're doing. Martin Prince: Oooh. I think I understand. The potential for mischief varies inversely to one's proximity to the authority figure. (He shows a note where he has written: MOC 1/PA) _______ Bart has something Martin does not. Social intelligence. Or what we might call, in this here D&Dish context, Charisma. Bart intuitively grasps how to handle other human beings in such a way that he can accomplish his goal of loving around on the bus. Martin does not. Martin needs the rule written down. _______ People say "RPGing is a social activity" (by which they usually mean "Hey man, gently caress you, I have a social life"). (And which is usually missing the point because they are arguing with someone who is not saying "you never talk to people" they're saying "you never meet new people".)(But that's a tangent.) Yet, ironically, it is an often-overlooked fact that RPGing is a social activity as in, if you drew a big giant Venn Diagram circle called "social activities", pen-and-paper RPG GMing would be a circle entirely inside that circle (excluding maybe prep, but you get my point). RPGing is a subset of social activities. RPGing is a subset of social activities where people sit around talking to each other. RPGing is a subset of social activities where people sit around talking to each other for like 2 hours or more. Other activities in this category include: sitting at a big table at a wedding, going to a bar, having lunch with people, Thanksgiving dinner, Superbowl Sunday. Which means: if you are with people who you wouldn't want to do any of these things with, there's no reason to assume it will be fun. ________________ Counter example: Soccer. I've played a lot of pickup soccer with a lot of people I don't know. Me and 5 people pick up a ball. We go to a green field. We meet total strangers, also five of them. We play soccer together. Soccer gets played. Easy. There are few sources of potential conflict: if somebody fouls the other team, there could be trouble--we now have to start rolling charisma. If one team is more serious and competitive overall than the other, then we might have to resort to charisma rolls. But, in general, (19 times out of 20) the fun-ness of the game is not entirely dependent on how well we get on with the other team, since soccer isn't all about talking. Usually it works fine. ________ An edge-case example: Pac Man It's just you and the electronic ghosts. You don't have to talk to them at all. Your fun is completely unrelated to how well you get on with people. However, as soon as you and the other person at the laundromat decide you are having a Pac Man Tournament and whoever gets furthest wins, part of your fun will depend on the chemistry between the two of you. ________ First point is: a huge part of what you do in an RPG is social interaction. If you get on with people and like them it can be a blast. If you don't, it can be ok, too--you can just concentrate on you versus the "ghosts"--but a part that could be fun is less so. ________ So alright, moving on: A few days ago I have this conversation. This is with someone of a GameForgey/4e-fan bent who thinks D&D doesn't have enough rules: (We are discussing the issue of Clever Plans That Fall Outside The Rules) Forgey Guy: It's really great when my coin idea works and it warns us of the tree elf's approach, but that relies on the DM (1) noticing the flag we're sending and (2) responding to it properly. That's a skill that takes years and years to develop, and even for a DM who has those skills, they still have off nights. So that approach means that the experience is unreliable. With an experienced DM at his best, it's a great game. With an inexperienced DM, or even an experienced DM who's tired or off his game, it's an exercise in frustration... SomeForgeygame is a good example of how you can do this, actually. You don't need years of experience to play the ___ well. Even if you're inexperienced or having an off-night, the game's rules make sure that the game is reliably fun Z: It seems again like you're trying to insulate from bad GMing. This always makes a more restrictive game that attracts dumber people. Someone Else Forgey: He's not talking about bad DMing, he's talking about a difference of expectation between two players of a game. Neither one is being unreasonable. Forgey Guy: I'm asking for a reliably fun game experience. My experience with D&D prior to 4E was showing up each week hoping that this would be the week that it was good, and usually being disappointed. When it was good, it was so good I'd even put up with the 90% of the time that it was just frustrating. There are games that provide a reliably fun experience. Z: A good gm manages expectations. A good group thinks up adult ways to negotiate them FG: You said: a good gm manages expectations. a good group thinks up adult ways to negotiate them Why does it take so much skill to have fun playing this game that we need a good GM and a good group? Isn't that kind of the sign of a poorly designed game? Surely a good group and a good GM could turn even the worst game into a fun experience. The real test of a good game is whether or not it can deliver a fun experience, reliably, even with new players or poor players.... I'm saying that having to accept that a game might or might not be fun, depending on who shows up to play it, is an unnecessary evil. ______ Ok, Martin. Do the math. Take people out of the equation. It can be done. Soccer is soccer even if I have no possible brand of communication with the other team. ______ And yes, there are very focused indie games (and, arguably, versions of D&D) which reduce the RPG experience down to "This game is About (huge word in dissatisfied-with-D&D circles) you being yellow and eating dots while ghosts try in turn to eat you. The other players may not jostle you while you eat ghosts, they may not place their quarters on the rim of the screen to indicate their turn is next, they may not hum The Bear Went Over The Mountain in your ear while you play though they may hum Row Your Boat, they may not declare they are 'going for fruits and not boards'." In other words, they carve the social element of the game down to a reasonable little chunk and tell everyone what it's About so that nobody who doesn't know exactly what they are in for shows up at this party. Which is fine. Which makes sense. I guess. If you're Martin. The rest of us can play a wide open game where nobody at the table is sure what it will be about and just follow the Don't Be A Dick rule until you all decide what you want it to be about. _________ Ron Edwards calls this "Ouija board play". And disdains it. (Or did when he wrote whatever essay I'm remembering) He claims (and I believe him) to know a lot of folks--in real life--who regularly play D&D and don't have fun. I don't know any. His old theory that each kind of player has one of a number of Goals and these determine what kind of games they can play seems to fly in the face of everything anyone who isn't Martin has noticed about people. They change what they wanna do all the time. Some players show up ready to hit things--this is their to-themself justification for why they play this socially crippling game. But any player, given the smack and wobble of human interaction, can decide s/he wants to just sit and listen to someone else do a funny voice--or suddenly become intrigued by a puzzle, or suddenly decide they want to build a castle, or become enamored of the sound of their own silly voice. Porn star tip! Did you know?: People in social situations often do things they didn't come in intending to do and like it. People who throw parties all the time know this. They have to clean up after it every 2nd friday. This is because there has never been an illusion in anyone's mind about whether parties are a social activity. _______ I think, essentially, this social dimension terrifies a lot of people. So there are all these games designed to route around the social dimension. _______ People who actually have a decent social circuit between them don't need a focused ruleset to tell them what to do: When Kimberly Kane has realized that the group's Exploration of Setting is maybe interfering with her Metagame Goal of Exploring Goblin Guts you go: "Well left or right, KK?" "Uh..."(vague hand wave, eye roll) ..and everyone knows where KK is at. Whereas Craigie T, experiencing the same frustration, might say "Hurry up with the Harry Potter business, McCormick, I wanna kill poo poo!" And we laugh and the players Ouija the game around and it works fine and everybody plays whenever they're off work and have 2 spare hours forever and we are happy. ___ That is the key here: Successful DIY D&D requires that internal conflict be resolved--or avoided--by at least a few people at the table being able to organically divide their attention between What they wanna do right now and What their friends want. This may sound exhausting, but it is also the basis of almost all successful human social interactions up to and including all the most fun ones, like going to the zoo or bowling or banging mad crazy hot sluts. _________ So, Martin, yes, you can chop down an RPG until it is like a pick-up soccer game and nobody has anything they have to do but get the ball in the box and nobody has to deal with anybody not being exactly into their kind of fun because if they weren't they would not have showed up to play Bianco: The Game About Being A Llama Who Attempts To Nuzzle Mice Using An Innovative Social Combat Mechanic Based On Wicker in the first place. And it will be as reliably fun as darts or checkers. You play with your eye on the board and not ever worry about what the other human being wants. When it is over, it will have been about what you expected it was going to be about and everyone will have been creative in the direction they were expecting to be creative and the game will totally have been satisfyingly About the desired Theme. Or you can open the game up a little into the realm of WTF Will Happen Tonight that people have been profitably enjoying for 40 years--but then--I'm warning you now--the game becomes more of a social activity. Will it be fun? If you are good with your peoples, yes. Will it be fun with strangers? Well would you engage in any social activity requiring 2 hours of sustained conversation with strangers and assume it'll be fun? It's a crapshoot: Like those tables full of weirdoes at weddings, the first day of school, the first day at work, the bar on the corner and like going outside in general. Scary, I know. ____ (OFFENDED INDIE GAMERS AND 4Eers PLEASE READ THIS HERE NOTE WHICH I HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN AN EMAIL INDICATING AN ANGRY INDIE GAMER DID NOT READ SO I AM ADDING THIS SPECIAL GIANT TYPE BRIGHT COLORED ALL-CAPS REMINDER TO READ HERE FOR YOUR SAKE). Rereading this before posting it, it seems like I might be suggesting the only reason people play Forgey games is out of fear of social negotiation. Obviously that isn't true. A lot of people like just playing a different kind of game. All the stuff in this could be said of 4E as well--it is a focused design made to simplify the social interaction--but people who want to play it don't necessarily want to just because they are socially inept. I myself have played and enjoyed 4e on occasion, as I repeatedly remind very stupid people. (I see you linking to this page, dude, I see you pretending it says something it does not say.) The point is just: any critique (from any party) of Old School games on the score that they don't have enough rules (for social combat, for DM adjudication of outside-the-box contingencies, for regular combat) is bullshit. They may not have enough rules for you. But you're you. We aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:I'M ALLOWED TO IMPLY THINGS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO LIKE DIFFERENT GAMES THAN I DO BUT YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO THE SAME. TIA That is the key here: Successful DIY D&D requires that internal conflict be resolved--or avoided--by at least a few people at the table being able to organically divide their attention between What they wanna do right now and What their friends want. This may sound exhausting, but it is also the basis of almost all successful human social interactions up to and including all the most fun ones, like going to the zoo or bowling or banging mad crazy hot sluts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
the best part is how nobody in this thread is involved with the industry, trying to make it a better place or doing anything cool with rpgs We're just performing the worst crime of all: quoting things people actually said
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
LincolnSmash posted:Can I still be part of the hivemind or have I disagreed with people in this thread too many times? I defended Gygax a few pages ago and I'm still part of it so you should be fine
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
How to avoid being obvious. There are three watchwords here. Be Subtle Be Complicated Be Crafty Of course this requires planning your room descriptions out ahead of time. My model for this is the 1st Edition DMG. "DM:'The sacks hold rotten grain, so the cleric will go and help the magic-user as ordered. They find the refuse consists of castings, some husks of small victims of the spider, hide, bones, a small humanoid skull, and 19 silver pieces. Do you now fire the webs overhead?' LC: 'Examine the skull first. What kind of humanoid was it? Can we tell?' DM: 'Possibly a goblin. When you are looking at it more closely, you see that there is a small gem inside - a garnet.'" And DM:'First, the others checking the containers find that they held nothing but water, or ore totally empty, and that the wood is rotten to boot. You see a few white, eyeless fish and various stone formations in a pool of water about 4' to 6' deep and about 10' long. That's all. Do you wish to leave the place now?" LC:'Yes, let's get out of here and go someplace where we can find something interesting.' OC: 'Wait! If those fish are iust blind cave types, ignore them, but what about the stone formations? Are any of them notable? If SO, I think we should check them out.' DM:'Okay. The fish are fish, but there is one group of minerals in the deepest part of the pool which appears to resemble a skeleton, but it simply - ' Be Subtle: This means downplay the things you mention. Mention them as if they are unimportant items in the room. There's a yellow cloak, some leather boots and a sword. Is the cloak covered in yellow mold? Do the boots hold a key? Is the sword rusted or magical? If you just described 10 other things in the room will the important thing stand out? It shouldn't. Walls aren't soot covered or covered in blood. Walls are stained, dirty, dark, filthy. The floor isn't covered in pulverized rock, the ground is sandy, dirty, or dusty. Be Complicated: The way into the secret room, isn't always in this room. Secret doors are not always two way. Your hints, maps, treasure maps and clues can be abstract. Mechanisms can be specific (You must lift up on the east side of the slab, the spider decoration on the iron chair in the corner must be lifted, the right eye of the frog mosaic must be pressed in 3 times.) For the uninitiated, here is Why This Is Not Pixel Bitching. Be Crafty: This is, know what your players are expecting. Did you trick them with yellow mold once? So they are expecting gold or yellow things to be dangerous? Put a gold or yellow thing on a wall that when poked, triggers a trap. When the poke it with a stick, to test if it's yellow mold, they get hit with the trap! Don't design your encounters in a vacuum. Have a repeating feature in your dungeon, like round stones in the wall. Have one of the stones depress to deactivate a trap, and another that presses in to activate a trap. Then leave a map as a clue, but make the map vague and abstract. Engage your players, make them think!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
James Raggi just kicked off 19 (yes, 19) separate IndieGoGo campaigns for 19 separate Lamentations of the Flame Princess adventures: Escaping Leviathan by Aeron Alfrey The Seclusium of Orphone by Vincent Baker Strange and Sinister Shores by Johnathan Bingham Towers Two by Dave Brockie The Unbegotten Citadel by Monte Cook The House of Bone and Amber by Kevin Crawford Of Unknown Provenance by Michael Curtis Machinations of the Space Princess by James Desborough Horror Among Thieves by Kelvin Green We Who Are Lost by Anna Kreider The Land that Exuded Evil by Cynthia Celeste Miller Pyre by Richard Pett I Hate Myself for What I Must Do by Mike Pohjola Broodmother Sky Fortress by Jeff Rients Normal for Norfolk by Juhani Seppälä Poor Blighters by Jeff and Joel Sparks The Depths of Paranoia by Jennifer Steen Red in Beak and Claw by Jukka Särkijärvi The Dreaming Plague by Ville "Burger" Vuorela they are all set for $6,000
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Good job Raggi for failing to understand how money works on any level. Doesn't indiegogo mean he gets the money regardless?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1429205189/2013-old-school-renaissance-calendar $7500 for an OSR calendar. 7500 At 30 you can add a real, non-US holiday like Canadian Thanksgiving. They are actually selling off real holidays. Just 40 to add a fantasy holiday, like Brewfest (??) For 60 you can add your own birthday to the calendar. For 80 they'll list an important day in your OSR campaign. At 100 they actually, literally make you one of the art directors. 7500
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Now I can know at a glance that Old School Gazette #04 released on January 4, 2007. Thanks OSR Calendar.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Will we be able to remake grogs.txt with an actual OP and rules? I've thought for a while that this thread would be a lot better with a real OP and some guidelines. screw you DM Mask OP For Life I mean that too, DM Mask is grognards.txt
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 01:45
|
|