|
Can't wait to complete my game about running a semi-popular fruit-flavored soda brand, Life of Slice.
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? May 13, 2024 05:20 |
|
Also, Siivola specifically mentioned that he's not complaining about the overabundance of stakes, but of the fact that the only stakes that seem acceptable to game designers are lives. That being said, that is not exactly true. Off the top of my head, I can think of no less than three games that don't necessarily expect your character to lose life and limb, and I am not the most knowledgeable person on the subject here. Monsterhearts, Monsters and Other Childish Things and Chuubo again, in case you were curious.
|
![]() |
|
In Monsterhearts you just risk making a mistake that could ruin your entire life. Abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent pregnancy and STDs.
|
![]() |
|
Yawgmoth posted:You sound like that one guy whose name I forget who put a big dumb screed in his game's core book about how everyone who wants combat rules in their RPG is a monster and a psychopath and how dare you!!! then ends it with "but fine, if you need a murder simulator here you go, but by using these rules you agree that you are a terrible person and everything that is wrong with society."
|
![]() |
|
paradoxGentleman posted:There actually is a system to play a Slice of Life sort of game whose mechanics even encourage you to do so and stay within genre. Oh, here I thought you were going to offer up ![]() since Chuubo's is about playing out genre fiction and Pastoral is a genre but it's not the ONLY genre. Nickel summary: there are like 20 core "XP Actions" you can frame scenes around, and which ones are generally available depends on the genre you want to play.
|
![]() |
|
I didn't know there was a game aimed specifically for that! That's cool, and I love the art. Might end up picking it up if I can.
|
![]() |
|
Lichtenstein posted:If you're talking about Mr. Stolze, expect to face divine retribution. Soon. For the record, the screed that may or may not be in question: Unknown Armies posted:Somewhere out there is someone who had loving parents, watched clouds on a summer’s day, fell in love, lost a friend, is kind to small animals, and knows how to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you,’ and yet somehow the two of you are going to end up in a dirty little room with one knife between you and you are going to have to kill that human being.
|
![]() |
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Conflict isn't the same thing as stabbing people. Once again conflict isn't the same thing as stabbing people.
|
![]() |
|
I do love that passage. Too often we just gloss over the combat chapter without thinking about what the rules really represent. More than that, it just works with the tone and themes of Unknown Armies, so while it may be a little much for a D&D-style game, it totally jives with the rest of UA. E: Although to be fair, even in most D&D games you could probably do with at least a passing mention of the implications of killing sapient beings. For monsters it doesn't really matter, but killing people deserves at least a little thought. I'd say include suggestions on how to avoid conflict, since murdering seems to be ingrained into so many players' minds as a first and only means of problem-solving. Serf fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jul 31, 2015 |
![]() |
|
Glazius posted:For the record, the screed that may or may not be in question: Ha-ha that's hilarious.
|
![]() |
|
Glazius posted:For the record, the screed that may or may not be in question: There's some merit to that. If you character is a person who lives more-or-less normally in society, outright murder should be a big deal.
|
![]() |
|
Glazius posted:For the record, the screed that may or may not be in question: That seems like a very nice and appropriate passage, given what little I know about Unknown Armies. What's Yawgmoth complaining about?
|
![]() |
|
paradoxGentleman posted:That seems like a very nice and appropriate passage, given what little I know about Unknown Armies. What's Yawgmoth complaining about? Combat rules don't kill people, people kill people!
|
![]() |
|
The right to werebear arms.
|
![]() |
|
Being currently in the process of finishing up the F&F for that particular book (Unknown Armies), I have to say that I had a similar "why is this rear end in a top hat judging me?" reaction when I first got the book, but I've since come to understand it better. It's basically UA doing what it always does both best and worst: conveying the tone of the game, while completely confusing people about what the tone should be. One of the big reasons that's there is that players in most UA games have no "safety net". It's not D&D where you can simply fight the good fight against the forces of darkness, or even Vampire or Mage where you're part of a secret society that's been bamboozling and preying on mortals for thousands of years. It's not even like Call of Cthulhu where no one is expecting to survive past next week anyway so you might as well tie dynamite to the hood of the jeep. In UA you may very well be a literal hobo...at best you're probably a relatively ordinary person who's already a little unhinged. If you try to play this game with a "violence first" perspective there are going to be fairly extreme consequences: physical, mental and (definitely) social. UA leans on the wall of the "real world" as it vomits on the pavement, and if you try any sort of "cowboy wizard hobo" poo poo you're going to run into trouble. The book isn't judging you for having fun with your "murder simulator", it's just trying to remind you, in a round-about way, that this is a different setting, with a different batch of assumptions. It's sub-title is "a game of power and consequences"...but you aren't Exalted characters ripping up the landscape or becoming president...There doesn't need to be a lot of power for the consequences to get very severe. That's what the passage is trying to remind you of...you've got a gun and an enemy. Ultimately, you have the power of life and death in your small little world and your choice will have consequences. Not because choosing to fight is right or wrong, but because that's what happens when you choose anything. oriongates fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jul 31, 2015 |
![]() |
|
Part of the reason why people resort to violence so quickly in D&D-esque games is because the setting and its assumed trappings do a lot lot lot to make it relatively consequence-free. What I'm getting from that quote is that you're no longer playing such a game and it's no longer in such a setting, so you need to change your perspective, because you will learn that killing other people will very very quickly limit your options, even if the GM isn't siccing the 21st Century panopticon on you just to be a dick.
|
![]() |
|
Violence rules, kill every stinking kobold and take their stuff. I don't even need a dozen half-spears!
|
![]() |
|
grassy gnoll posted:Violence rules, kill every stinking kobold and take their stuff. I don't even need a dozen half-spears! This. But sincerely on its entirety.
|
![]() |
|
Am I allowed to quote HG Wells in my defense on my predilection for violence in tabletop gaming, or does his quote from the end of Little Wars only apply to historical-ish wargame (or at least decently researched) settings?
|
![]() |
|
paradoxGentleman posted:That seems like a very nice and appropriate passage, given what little I know about Unknown Armies. What's Yawgmoth complaining about? ![]() oriongates posted:The book isn't judging you for having fun with your "murder simulator", it's just trying to remind you, in a round-about way, that this is a different setting, with a different batch of assumptions. It's sub-title is "a game of power and consequences"...but you aren't Exalted characters ripping up the landscape or becoming president...There doesn't need to be a lot of power for the consequences to get very severe. That's what the passage is trying to remind you of...you've got a gun and an enemy. Ultimately, you have the power of life and death in your small little world and your choice will have consequences. Not because choosing to fight is right or wrong, but because that's what happens when you choose anything.
|
![]() |
|
I mean there's nothing necessarily wrong with liking violence in your tabletop games. I think the point here is that it is often presented as the first viable option of conflict-resolution and that trains players to see any obstacle as a target for violence. It's totally fine to have that as an option, and in many games there are other ways to navigate conflict, but overall the focus on combat and violence tends to get players thinking one way about things. And in UA it makes sense because it takes place in (sorta) the real world, and placing a heavy emphasis on the awfulness of fighting and killing is pretty important in that context.
|
![]() |
|
I remember reading that but nothing called Unknown Armies. Did it have something to do with GURPS?
|
![]() |
|
Are we even sure Stolze even wrote that bit in UA, given that John Tynes co-wrote the game and, well...he did create Powerkill
|
![]() |
|
Yawgmoth posted:I think it's really loving sanctimonious and passive aggressive, much in the way I find Siivola's rant about "ugh this whole hobby started out with wargames and now everything is about people going places and doing things and sometimes those people and/or their friends are in mortal danger, Just to be absolutely sure, I reread both Siivola's post and the UA text and I feel that you are feeling attacked when there is no reason to, considering that what is being condemned isn't the presence of conflict, but the fact that apparently nothing short the life or death of someone can motivate a character, or at the very least must be put on the line for a game to be played, and he even points out that there is nothing wrong with enjoying that. As for UA, like Serf pointed out, it's supposed to take place in a setting very similar to our world, and since most RPG players don't start out in that mental space because they are conditioned by D&D, it makes sense to explain the situation while a the same time providing alternatives for people that maybe didn't think about them in the first place. Apart from the fact that, as I said, this is not as universal as he says it is, I can sort of see where he's coming from.
|
![]() |
|
Yawgmoth posted:I think it's really loving sanctimonious and passive aggressive...I don't want or need the writer assuming I'm already doing everything wrong before putting out the information he wants to convey in the next section. You are coming across as incredibly insecure. If you haven't read the whole book - so that you see how this passage slots into the work as a whole - you are doing yourself a disservice. Get some context.
|
![]() |
|
grassy gnoll posted:Somebody sell me on Battle Century G, please. Do you like tactical combat, an emphasis on balance, relatively simple yet satisfyingly robust character creation and customization options, and of course giant robots? Then you should check out BCG. http://gimmicklabs.blogspot.com/?m=1 - Here's the site. Check out the reference document.
|
![]() |
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Just to be absolutely sure, I reread both Siivola's post and the UA text and I feel that you are feeling attacked when there is no reason to, considering that what is being condemned isn't the presence of conflict, but the fact that apparently nothing short the life or death of someone can motivate a character, or at the very least must be put on the line for a game to be played, and he even points out that there is nothing wrong with enjoying that. quote:As for UA, like Serf pointed out, it's supposed to take place in a setting very similar to our world, and since most RPG players don't start out in that mental space because they are conditioned by D&D, it makes sense to explain the situation while a the same time providing alternatives for people that maybe didn't think about them in the first place. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Do you like tactical combat, an emphasis on balance, relatively simple yet satisfyingly robust character creation and customization options, and of course giant robots? How does that simulate SRW or Front Mission gameplay-wise? Only question I have.
|
![]() |
|
You sound like you need to chill out and get some perspective.
|
![]() |
|
Yawgmoth posted:Where does Siivola say anything of that sort? All I see is bitching about life & death stakes and being cynical about survival. Which is needless hyperbole since the only game you could even come close to making that assertion about is D&D, and even there it's a rather tough sell. Maybe I'm just reading an entirely different set of books or something, but I doubt it. Given Stolze also did Wild Talents, Godlike, Better Angels and the kill damage rules for new delta green, which all feature lots of rules on making other people dead, you're very wrong on thinking he's 'resentful of a pretty basic facet of the hobby'.
|
![]() |
|
I never read that part before, but I'd say it's a pretty important thing to put in a modern-day, non-action-oriented RPG where you're trying to capture a specific tone. Violence IRL is a pretty big deal, psychologically, and if that's what you're aiming for, handling it with the appropriate gravity sounds like a good move. The last remark was maybe unnecessary, but I really don't understand all the angst.
|
![]() |
|
Yawgmoth is a blood frenzied example of satanic conditioning D&D does to our children.
|
![]() |
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:How does that simulate SRW or Front Mission gameplay-wise? Only question I have. It's SRW the tabletop. Tactical robot combat on a grid with different terrain features and your pilots even get a set number of "genre powers" which use "genre points" and are basically like SRW's spirit commands. You can also totally build Getter Robo. As in multiple separate mecha that combine in multiple different ways to create multiple different badass robots.
|
![]() |
|
Jackard posted:I remember reading that but nothing called Unknown Armies. Did it have something to do with GURPS? I don't think so. GURPS combat is fairly deadly, but the books don't discuss how brutal it can be in play.
|
![]() |
|
Mecha Gojira posted:It's SRW the tabletop. Tactical robot combat on a grid with different terrain features and your pilots even get a set number of "genre powers" which use "genre points" and are basically like SRW's spirit commands. Sold.
|
![]() |
|
Mecha Gojira posted:It's SRW the tabletop. Tactical robot combat on a grid with different terrain features and your pilots even get a set number of "genre powers" which use "genre points" and are basically like SRW's spirit commands. This has my interest.
|
![]() |
|
Lichtenstein posted:Yawgmoth is a blood frenzied example of satanic conditioning D&D does to our children. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:This has my interest. There's also separate pilot creation, and role playing your pilots during intermission nets you more genre points to use in mecha combat. My favorite mechanic is escalation, though, where each round everyone adds an extra +1 to hit and is tied to finishing move abilities/weapons with names like Zweihander, Radiant Fist, and Missile Massacre. And of course it's all effects based, so you're free to flavor anything however you want.
|
![]() |
|
Mecha Gojira posted:There's also separate pilot creation, and role playing your pilots during intermission nets you more genre points to use in mecha combat. Ohhh that does sound pretty cool and I might try it... Although what I really want is a TRPG that is on the same "Real Robot" genre and related mechanics as Armored Core, Front Mission or hell, even Mechwarrior, although ever since Mekton (which was better played for Super Robot genre games any way) there weren't many of those.
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? May 13, 2024 05:20 |
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Ohhh that does sound pretty cool and I might try it... Although what I really want is a TRPG that is on the same "Real Robot" genre and related mechanics as Armored Core, Front Mission or hell, even Mechwarrior, although ever since Mekton (which was better played for Super Robot genre games any way) there weren't many of those. Well, like in armored core, you load external components onto different external parts, but the difference is when you take damage, you lose points in layers. When a layer is destroyed, a corresponding part is disabled and you lose access to that part's components. Which part you lose is a decision either you or the enemy makes depending on an even vs odd roll. That's probably the most complicated part of the game though in terms of robot simulation. At low levels in particular you can also get that real robot feeling just from the fact that you aren't flying an all powerful God machine since you have fewer points to spend on things that ignore or negate the above effects. The main purpose of the game, though, is less simulating piloting a giant robot and more role playing an episode of a giant robot series.
|
![]() |