|
Post by newsteinleo on Feb 1, 2012 10:57:49 GMT -8
I am currently working on a home brew system, and would like to hear an episode on the topic of building home brews. Should you start from scratch or modify an existing system. Some ideas about balancing stats and skills. what kinds of combat systems work and don't work. Where do you draw the line between simulation and abstraction. When can the mechanics hurt a game and how can they help a game. How to keep Tappy from breaking the system. What do you like best, D20, 2D12, 3D10, or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Aug 1, 2012 7:40:41 GMT -8
Okay, I know this one is controversial, but if you are looking for a topic that should generate plenty of discussion...
Does system matter? If so, how much and why?
I know Tappy's a "yes" on that question. Stu is a GURPS guy, so maybe he leans more toward the "no" part of the spectrum. But where do the rest of the group stand?
And on a related note, I'd love to hear you guys try out some one-shots in different systems and comment on your experiences. You've been talking about Fiasco, for example.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 1, 2012 10:09:04 GMT -8
Okay, I know this one is controversial, but if you are looking for a topic that should generate plenty of discussion... Does system matter? If so, how much and why? I know Tappy's a "yes" on that question. Stu is a GURPS guy, so maybe he leans more toward the "no" part of the spectrum. But where do the rest of the group stand? And on a related note, I'd love to hear you guys try out some one-shots in different systems and comment on your experiences. You've been talking about Fiasco, for example. This is a great idea for a topic, my only caveat is that I want to be there for the discussion. JiB
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 1, 2012 10:37:02 GMT -8
Okay, I know this one is controversial, but if you are looking for a topic that should generate plenty of discussion... Does system matter? If so, how much and why? I know Tappy's a "yes" on that question. Stu is a GURPS guy, so maybe he leans more toward the "no" part of the spectrum. But where do the rest of the group stand? And on a related note, I'd love to hear you guys try out some one-shots in different systems and comment on your experiences. You've been talking about Fiasco, for example. This is a great idea for a topic, my only caveat is that I want to be there for the discussion. JiB The bonus points question, of course, is whether character sheets matter.... Tappy would be a "no" ... and I want Tappy there for that discussion!
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 1, 2012 13:41:12 GMT -8
This is a great idea for a topic, my only caveat is that I want to be there for the discussion. JiB The bonus points question, of course, is whether character sheets matter.... Tappy would be a "no" ... and I want Tappy there for that discussion! Heh heh heh ... Character sheets are holding you back man, inhibiting your creativity. JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2012 3:22:58 GMT -8
You wanted topics, ok here goes.
Awesome mist have Apps for RPGs for smartphones and tablets
How to speed up your GM without being a dick. Because sometimes he just describes everything in too much detail...
What do you need to look out for when building a world.
How to distribute loot and how much is too much.
How can you set up your own campaign Wiki and what should be in it?
These are the first things that came into my mind after your last episode when you said coming up with topics is hard. I really would love to hear more about each one of these things.
Keep up the awesome podcast!
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 2, 2012 6:20:00 GMT -8
How to speed up your GM without being a dick. Because sometimes he just describes everything in too much detail... And players! Faster processing Munchkins that press the GM to walk into doom and slower processing players who want to understand the nuance of .... yeah, a language that is not their first language, though they are proficient. Without making it into an ESL-tip session; consider the wide-eyed wonder of children who are otherwise language proficient as the "type" of player I mean. Or, maybe and, the situation can exist because there is a period of time required to get familar to some stranger describing stuff to another stranger to visualize without language and issue. My specific problem in the past was handling these two types together at the table - players who rush into a potential combat, PC suddenly awakened and unarmoured (that was popular!) and the player spinning in circles (common problem in sandbox play I understand). One not participating enough in the information dialogue and the other caught in anaylsis paralysis: One style causes fear and the other boredom. I cannot simply throw ninjas or random encounters at them 24/7, which would cause less engrossment in Munchkins and more fear in the new player. And it simulateously, positively and negatively, reinforces the lowest common denominator: roll playing. [I think I will have solved this now by booting the Min-Max play-actors...]
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 2, 2012 6:25:27 GMT -8
I've played a variety of RPG rules systems (Traveller being my favourite). What rule systems & backgrounds are so great that everyone should try playing under them once? How about the most exciting rule systems & backgrounds to GM? Does the rule system really matter, or is most of the excitement due to the GM and other players? Discuss! Not only which ones are Great, but perhaps more importantly, which systems are best geared toward certain styles of game (low fantasy, high fantasy, futuristic, large groups, small groups, cinematic, realistic, etc.)? Or, perhaps a run-through of various systems and what they're best suited for and what their greatest strengths and weaknesses are. I'm currently looking to move away from D&D 3.5 for my next game (gritty, low-magic fantasy setting); there's a lot to keep track of and a lot of little one-off rules. I have used the old system from WhiteWolf (and have a lot of love for its simplicity), but I am also looking for other options. As an aside, I would also enjoy scientific proof that Boob Dice roll any better than normal dice, Ass Dice, or even Dick Dice. I think 100 rolls of each would be enough, no? What about Beer Dice? I'm hazarding resurrecting an old thread topic to address the 'how' in the question rather than the 'which' Of system choices - I'd hazard cashing in on topics of interest, certain systems have their own strengths in certain tropes . . . Find what's trending in your group (yep shameless steal from twatter speak) outside of the game table and take it from there. Eg: my new group has never played traveller . . . Judge Dredd movie is coming out soon . . . Loads of interest in that movie and the 2000ad stable of characters and universes: I've got them interested in a Strontium Dog one shot as a result. The bonus is they get an interesting introduction to the traveller system . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2012 7:54:20 GMT -8
There are a TON of different RPG systems out there, and I know the HJ crew has tried out thier fair share of them. I would love to hear a brief rundown of the good and the bad parts of some of the systems you guys discuss or have played. Possibly as a mini-segment spread out amongst each episode.
Thoughts?
-Shoe
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 6, 2012 12:03:02 GMT -8
I would like to hear a systems discussion with someone taking my, and kainguru's, point of view.
It might be good radio to have the debate based on well-reasoned arguments representing all sides if friends, who know each other and are face-to-face, have the discussion.
Maybe the discussion tracks from what a system was back in the 70's to what a system represents today... that could reveal a sea change in the discussion in the matters of system topic.
My GM = System argument is thoroughly represented in AD&D 1e DMG insofar as "only the GM should know the system" is the key ingredient contained in the first two sentences of the Preface and carried throughout - even in the awarding of XP being subjective to the GM. This being a codified non-system system so that only the GM knows the system. If Gygax is hard to read, think about what expectation the reader might bring to the table reading a core book and imagine the rhetorical conceit of Gary actively trying not to describe a system yet having to describe a systemized game.
The paradigm shift being that the roll of the dice (back in /those/ days) restricted the GM response rather than the player action.
Anyway, it could be a really interesting discussion and lead to interesting places. I do not think anyone has actually had this discussion on an open mic.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Sept 6, 2012 13:33:06 GMT -8
I would like to hear a systems discussion with someone taking my, and kainguru's, point of view. It might be good radio to have the debate based on well-reasoned arguments representing all sides if friends, who know each other and are face-to-face, have the discussion. Maybe the discussion tracks from what a system was back in the 70's to what a system represents today... that could reveal a sea change in the discussion in the matters of system topic. My GM = System argument is thoroughly represented in AD&D 1e DMG insofar as " only the GM should know the system" is the key ingredient contained in the first two sentences of the Preface and carried throughout - even in the awarding of XP being subjective to the GM. This being a codified non-system system so that only the GM knows the system. If Gygax is hard to read, think about what expectation the reader might bring to the table reading a core book and imagine the rhetorical conceit of Gary actively trying not to describe a system yet having to describe a systemized game. The paradigm shift being that the roll of the dice (back in /those/ days) restricted the GM response rather than the player action.
Anyway, it could be a really interesting discussion and lead to interesting places. I do not think anyone has actually had this discussion on an open mic. While it could be an interesting debate, the two statements, "GM = System," and, "Only the gm should know the system," are a far cry from one another. I understand where you're coming from and up to a point I agree with you. As a gm I try to take concern for the rules off of the players and free them to simply play their characters. But I am not the system, nor is it MY game. There is a very important point to keep in mind. I am not the game, nor do I own the game. I am the unbiased adjudicator of events. As such I am outside the game while the players and their characters (If all goes well) are inside the game. My goal for players is to be, "Looking out from inside the character's eyes." So, while I agree to a point, I think that the statement, "GM = system." is carrying the idea farther than it actually goes. Just my 2 kruplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary. JiB
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 6, 2012 14:17:42 GMT -8
I would like to hear a systems discussion with someone taking my, and kainguru's, point of view. It might be good radio to have the debate based on well-reasoned arguments representing all sides if friends, who know each other and are face-to-face, have the discussion. Maybe the discussion tracks from what a system was back in the 70's to what a system represents today... that could reveal a sea change in the discussion in the matters of system topic. My GM = System argument is thoroughly represented in AD&D 1e DMG insofar as " only the GM should know the system" is the key ingredient contained in the first two sentences of the Preface and carried throughout - even in the awarding of XP being subjective to the GM. This being a codified non-system system so that only the GM knows the system. If Gygax is hard to read, think about what expectation the reader might bring to the table reading a core book and imagine the rhetorical conceit of Gary actively trying not to describe a system yet having to describe a systemized game. The paradigm shift being that the roll of the dice (back in /those/ days) restricted the GM response rather than the player action.
Anyway, it could be a really interesting discussion and lead to interesting places. I do not think anyone has actually had this discussion on an open mic. While it could be an interesting debate, the two statements, "GM = System," and, "Only the gm should know the system," are a far cry from one another. I understand where you're coming from and up to a point I agree with you. As a gm I try to take concern for the rules off of the players and free them to simply play their characters. But I am not the system, nor is it MY game. There is a very important point to keep in mind. I am not the game, nor do I own the game. I am the unbiased adjudicator of events. As such I am outside the game while the players and their characters (If all goes well) are inside the game. My goal for players is to be, "Looking out from inside the character's eyes." So, while I agree to a point, I think that the statement, "GM = system." is carrying the idea farther than it actually goes. Just my 2 kruplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary. JiB Hi JiB, I cannot disagree with your point of view, as it certainly is as valid as any. But I think the difference between one and the other is a little less obvious. And I can hardly be "the unbiased adjudicator of events" if I am working with the players on story or practicing DM Fiat on dice rolls... much less enjoying myself alongside the other players. I do not consider myself outside the game or separate from players. (That's close to us vs them for me.) I, too, have an agenda Imust recognise. I get something out of RPGs even if I am in the role of GM. Some players play classes and one plays GM. But every one is a player. And we play together. **CENSORED** is open to the abuse that comes with **CENSORED**. But in being open - being in the open - the onus reveals the need to identifying douchey DMs from experienced and inexperienced DM/GMs. The old saying is if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it really fall equally applies to the Douchey GM sitting alone with his system. Is it really a tabletop role-playing game system if no one else plays it...? And where there is great power, there is great responsibility... We might have a row on this topic if you (or I, or we both) were a Douchey GM. That would reveal more about us than just an opinion of system of play, and it might impact our ability to attract players to our game if we're both perceived as douches - this regardless of game or system. However, by being open to each other, even if we believe our perspective is uniquely correct, also means that is how we treat our players when the game goes off the rails. And that openness players see in our interaction here or at the table is bound to affect the system/style we play. And player trust. Yeah, I am still of the opinion GM = System. Maybe there is no appetite for discussion of this topic on the airwaves. Maybe I am the only one, or represent only a handful of interest. I do not know. I think my perspective is important to the hobby. And I would like Stu to argue on behalf of my perspective because he raises some good points in opposition to my point of view. If that makes sense to anyone in reasoning my choice of a **CENSORED** defender.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 6, 2012 14:58:07 GMT -8
CreativeCowboy, a thought just occurred to me as to **CENSORED** and the GM only knowing the rules . . . is this not simply a marvellously effective counter to the problems of rules-lawyers and meta-gaming? Let the GM do the crunch while the players play (and hopefully immerse) . . . provided the GM isn't a douche. It also suggests that the myth of adversarial GMing in 'The Day' was just that - a myth where actual occurrences were more probably a product of immature youth not the game (I might even hazard to suggest that it has remained just a prevalent over time, within that confined demographic, despite changes in game design . . . and given that most posters and podcasters left those sweaty early years of adolescence behind many winters ago we remain primarily unaware of its persistence)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 7, 2012 7:55:56 GMT -8
Aaron, I have always thought that. My recent re-awakening to the hobby, occurring just before 4e was launched, has been quite a Rip Van Winkle eye opener. In this iteration of my GM career, I have had to learn that, to be a GM, I am required by default to justify myself according to a published system (not merely rules within the system that I am permitted to adjudicate but I need to present someone else’s point of view to enjoy the privilege of GMing players). This awareness may inform the matters of system discussion, where an RPG system existing apart from the players is argued. I have learnt that players have become ensorcelled by system concerns rather than by a concern to play and the “GM = System” has been disempowered consequently. (i.e. The understanding that a GM is adjunct to the rule book rather than the guide book adjunct to the GM, privileging the “RPG system existing outside the players” argument.)
I have seen the co-operative difference between new-to-the-hobby players – play very much the way it was when I was new-to-the-hobby and which still persists for me today - and the experienced players. I have witnessed my familiar style of “what if I were in the role of the character” and the style foreign to me of “I want to play Drizzt and I need a bunch of mechanics to do it (and a system that permits me to do it).” I have seen the range of both styles from the first group, “I want to play myself,” to the second group, “I want to play someone other than myself.” I certainly have a preference between these two groups, and a (GM = System) bias as well.
GM = System may be my definition of OSR. I guess we used to call it “GM is God” when we were quickly describing it to others who had never heard of the hobby before as immature kids with a new toy are prone to do. And, I guess there is nothing wrong with that definition so long as it is an appellation of innocence rather than one of guile.
I have noticed the people who play themselves are more relaxed about rules and I cannot help but observe the people who play characters feel constrained by their characters and seek to grapple with “system” in order to out build those constraints – a role-playing min-maxing that is akin to typing oneself up to untie oneself. The first group does not look at the game as a constraint, and I have to police the second group of experienced players from enforcing constraints onto the new players.
For the first group, the most important criterion for a game is what happens at the table. Is it fun? Was it fun? It is simple to establish an on-going player, and to rate the experience of a GM and rate him on a separate continuum of douche-ness based on that criterion. Of course, it is subjective but will provide empirical data over time to address that system of “evaluation crunch.”
For the second group, the most important criteria for their game are summed in the answer to the question: “Can I do what my character I want to play should be able to do?” Character generation is crucial for this group of experienced gamers who tend to write novelettes for character background. This makes character death harder to for me to administer because, after the player has invested all that effort and time into the character, I struggle to know when is it appropriate for the dice to declare his PC dead. Seems a shame at 1st level after all that effort, and it seems equally a shame at 20th level after all that development. Furthermore, the experienced player’s novelized character does not seem to have the same connection to the player’s skill as it does in the first group.
Now we get into dice of role-playing….
If a player described doing something obviously stupid – the kind of stupid done by people who win Darwin Awards – the first group will accept a character death. It just has to make sense – dare I say “common sense” to everyone at the table: the step out into traffic without looking and get hit by a bus “common sense.” The first group does not have elaborate back-stories tied to their PCs but rather practice a tabletop show not tell. Eventually a back-story forms organically for them at the table.
The second group is much harder to grok a consensus of “common sense” because the focus is so much more on the individual characters than on the players themselves. The second group are playing themselves playing someone else, and will sometimes reject limitations of common sense in order to stretch themselves. A mundane, common sense might bind them and then “they may as well be playing themselves” (derogatory tone). If they do something stupid, like stepping into traffic without looking, then they can justify: “but my character would never do that!” They claim those distances few players do who are new-to-the-hobby.
I call it cheating and borderline argumentative in my system. I recall The Gamers film. Do you remember the Master Thief, Nimble? Yeah, that guy. That’s the guy I am talking about.
Essentially it is the same argument a player who believes he is socially inept and plays a face uses when he defers to a dice roll rather than a role-play. This does not typically happen in the first group.
I once had just such a player (English is not the first language of this player so amp up the fear) try to burgle the office inside a popular whorehouse. The parlor was within sight down the hall and so was the office door in sight of the parlor. And he was spotted. I had him roll and he rolled a natural 20. But that did not absolve him of the role-playing. His roll informed me what sort of person saw him. His role informed me of my role-play.
His roll determined one of the specific characteristics of a whore in the bordello whom he met. I have to tell you, she is none too bright and must have just started working there….
And that supports GM = System, a system where the GM makes the decision how to interpret the dice; if they get rolled; and how they are applied; aside from the administration of house rules; and the decision to include or exclude mechanics from any guidebook on his personal shelf.
I think such a discussion is topical, far reaching and has legs.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 7, 2012 12:12:40 GMT -8
kaitoujuliet asked me a really good question here which I think feeds into the topic I am suggesting, albeit from the topic kaitoujuliet originally proposed: Does system matter, to which I reply: GM = System matters.
|
|