|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 23, 2013 14:01:15 GMT -8
I wanna see this Mike Mearls "shitty DM" video. Well it gave me a fist full of sticky ten pound notes . . . but then again I'll masturbate to anything . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 24, 2013 6:52:16 GMT -8
SavageCheerleader guitarspider KainguruI didn't want to try to capture the whole exchange in quotes. I think that it's a natural impetus to try to capture what is going on in our games in rules. I know I fall prey to the impulse far too often. The main selling point of GURPS back in the day was that it had rules for everything! I think it makes plenty of sense to have rules to regulate what you are doing in your game. Unless you are very comfortable with your game, and creative, and your players have a lot of trust in you, it's a lot of effort to make up shit for your game! It's a lot easier to request a rules clarification from the people who made up the game. Especially, if you are all baby-grognards. RPGs were descended from war-games as we all know, but war-gaming has a history going back to the early 1900s, whereas the rpg aspect was new. I think it's taken quite some time for the "rules" that govern the role-playing to catch up with the much older body of wargaming rules. I think a lot of newer rpgs are coming at the game from the storytelling perspective instead of the the wargaming perspective. No judgments, but you end up with a different feel to the game. Arcona , my friend and I joke that when we are in our 80s we are going to be sitting in old-people coffee shops, playing half-life and starcraft on our "retro-tops" bitching about "kids these days have no imagination! They have to have their entertainment piped straight into the backs of their heads! Unplug kids, play a real game!" and the cyberpunk punks will look at us an scoff, "Look at those old guys, they don't even jack in! Their games are in two-d and they have to use a keyboard. Talk about old!"
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 24, 2013 9:56:40 GMT -8
Right thread this time (posted to the wrong thread a minute ago) As to the golden age of gaming or whatever, I find it really amusing that people that 'weren't there' in 'the day' have such vivid opinions as to what did and did not 'go down'. Kinda reminds me of my mum, uncle and aunt laughing uproariously at people 20 years their junior discussing what it was like in the 60's . . . I think my uncle summed it up nicely "you weren't there sunshine you know jack shit, truth is nothings really changed it was just as shit then as it is now . . . why do think we all got so fucking stoned? . . . ". Arcona you can call bullshit all you like but the fact is you 'weren't there' to know otherwise or not. Just like I could try to scoff at the impact of the assassination of JFK on a generation, 50 years after the fact, when the truth is 'I wasn't there'. No matter how many revisionist modern histories I might read or opinions I might form based on anecdotal observation, I can never honestly say what the impact was of that event on the lives of those people 'then and there'. I am too young for OD&D, I've no idea how it was played . . . I do know why AD&D was crafted,only because the designers (plural) were very forthright about it across numerous interviews and articles. It was designed to codify play to create a degree of universality (a common language) across different groups, more specifically it was crafted to accommodate convention tournament play by having standardized guidelines/rulings between DM's who were adjudicating several groups of players in competition with each other. Also note that most of the 'problematic classes' people mention were A)in OD&D (the supplements eg: Blackmoor and Greyhawk) B) not designed by Gary Gygax (eg: the ranger, the assassin, the bard) C) they were included in AD&D because the gaming public wanted them to be . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 25, 2013 14:53:41 GMT -8
Kainguru , am I one of the offending parties? I tried to preface my statements with a strong disclaimer that I was, in fact, not there. Isn't the whole point of studying history to try and understand why things happen and their effect on the "people"? Should we abandon that endeavor entirely? As someone who has taught the period of history surrounding the JFK assassination, I would argue that I have a sympathetic understanding of what happened, while not perfect, it does help to clarify what happened next. Isn't relying on the statements of the designers just another way of saying you weren't there and that you are having to do historian's work in order to understand what happened? Not that I've done anything of the sort, but I might argue that someone who interviewed hundreds of gamers about their experiences in the early days of gaming might have a better picture of what happened than someone who played with only three or four groups and a few conventions before 2e. All that said, I wasn't there. Did "tournament play" ever really take off? That sounds like the kind of thing in which you would have to have prewritten rules to cover a multitude of situations and severely curtail roleplaying advantages. Assuming this was the reason for the large expansion of the rules, it would stand to reason that many of the rules-heavy areas of Pathfinder/D&D are an artifact of an era in which one couldn't create a tournament based crpg capable of perfectly adjudicating the rules, much the same way that (some would argue) AC is an artifact of D&Ds wargaming past. Now that's an interesting idea.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 25, 2013 16:03:37 GMT -8
Kainguru , am I one of the offending parties? I tried to preface my statements with a strong disclaimer that I was, in fact, not there. Isn't the whole point of studying history to try and understand why things happen and their effect on the "people"? Should we abandon that endeavor entirely? As someone who has taught the period of history surrounding the JFK assassination, I would argue that I have a sympathetic understanding of what happened, while not perfect, it does help to clarify what happened next. Isn't relying on the statements of the designers just another way of saying you weren't there and that you are having to do historian's work in order to understand what happened? Not that I've done anything of the sort, but I might argue that someone who interviewed hundreds of gamers about their experiences in the early days of gaming might have a better picture of what happened than someone who played with only three or four groups and a few conventions before 2e. All that said, I wasn't there. Did "tournament play" ever really take off? That sounds like the kind of thing in which you would have to have prewritten rules to cover a multitude of situations and severely curtail roleplaying advantages. Assuming this was the reason for the large expansion of the rules, it would stand to reason that many of the rules-heavy areas of Pathfinder/D&D are an artifact of an era in which one couldn't create a tournament based crpg capable of perfectly adjudicating the rules, much the same way that (some would argue) AC is an artifact of D&Ds wargaming past. Now that's an interesting idea. No Grog, you weren't, because by your own admission you were guessing at what it was like. Which is a fair and honest point. There came afterwards though a slew of comments from other posters that were surprisingly 'authoritative' given the age of the posters. I'll hasten to add that I wasn't there either, too young in 1974 given basic reading and writing skills were a challenge for me then. . . . I'd like to hear from someone who was. For a brief period I am led to believe tournament play did take off . . . Most classic modules were tournament modules : Slavers, Hidden Shrine of the Tamoachan, White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors, etc etc Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 25, 2013 16:42:20 GMT -8
No Grog, you weren't, because by your own admission you were guessing at what it was like. Which is a fair and honest point. There came afterwards though a slew of comments from other posters that were surprisingly 'authoritative' given the age of the posters. I'll hasten to add that I wasn't there either, too young in 1974 given basic reading and writing skills were a challenge for me then. . . . I'd like to hear from someone who was. For a brief period I am led to believe tournament play did take off . . . Most classic modules were tournament modules : Slavers, Hidden Shrine of the Tamoachan, White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors, etc etc Aaron Now that is interesting. That sheds a lot of light on why those modules seem specifically designed to be nigh impossible for players and/or to kill them. It also makes sense that a pimply kid who read that would interpret it as "I'm supposed to kill the players!" instead of "I'm supposed to run a very difficult module impartially in order to test this group against another." Hm...I should research this tournament play history. Edit: The D&D championship series wikipedia article is interesting and very enlightening. It also seems a rational leap of logic to assume that the flagship game is essentially designed to be a team sport much more about "killing bad guys and taking their stuff" and less about "roleplaying". I think it would extremely interesting to pick an Indie-ish system and have a tournament based on how well they roleplay either a given scenario, pre-approved concept, or free-for-all concept. I imagine this being somewhere along the continuum of "one-act play" or improv competitions. Instead of being scored by the GM, the "party" (which includes the GM) receives points from an impartial panel of judges (or a popular vote) that reviews either the live play or a recording of the play. Points would be awarded based on a rubric. Having done various performance based competitions in school (debate, duet acting, one act play, prose recital, etc) I see no reason that this couldn't work. And it could be AMAAAZING! Let's do it, lets take back the game!
|
|
|
Post by SavageCheerleader on Dec 25, 2013 16:47:30 GMT -8
These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste.
Gary Gygax, D&D, Volume I, Men&Magic, 1973
This book also represents a new trend in the fine art of Dungeon Mastering. As originally conceived, D & D was limited in scope only by the imagination and devotion of Dungeon Masters everywhere. The supplements have fulfilled the need for fresh ideas and additional stimulation. But somewhere along the line, D & D lost some of its flavor, and began to become predictable. This came about as a result of the proliferation of rule sets; while this was great for us as a company, it was tough on the DM. When all the players had all of the rules in front of them, it became next to impossible to beguile them into danger or mischief. The new concept pioneered within these pages should go a long way towards put- ting back in some of the mystery, uncertainty and danger that make D & D the un- paralleled challenge it was meant to be. Legend Lore once again becomes the in- valuable spell it was meant to be. No more will some foolhardy adventurer run down into a dungeon, find something and immediately know how it works, or even what it does, By the same token, no longer will players be able to send some unfortunate hireling to an early demise by forcing him to experiment on his master's goodies.
Tim Kask, Supllement III, Eldritch Wizardry, 1976
Source: looking at my books now. D&D was, at one time, very roleplay/narrative heavy, relying on descriptions and voices and questions and riddles. Then they made it about the dice and dolls. Hell, Gygax even spoke against dolls at the table as unnecessary. However, he was a douche when it came to play acting. His articles in Dragon Mag state as much in very clear terms; it was Arneson and Kask and the others who drove the game as a stage forward from the earliest days (Blackmoor, the longest and earliest running campaign).
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 26, 2013 1:06:45 GMT -8
SavageCheerleader : the point is being missed - quoting bits of the original D&D product and assuming that one version of history is right over another is exactly why I say there are no authorities or any one definitive version of events. The Gygax Kask Arneson debacle depends on who you believe - all we have a written accounts that will reflect the bias of the writer. Besides I'm not interested in what the Lake Geneva group did or didn't do - I would like to here from the people that bought the white box and played. I'd like to here from the guys that started around 1974 upto 1977 and hear how they gamed. Again I'm too young to be one of them . . . History becomes one of two things as time progresses - it either clarifies or becomes more muddled. JFK is more muddled, WW2 clarified and RPG's just plain confusing. Certainly the history of the murky business practices of the past make getting an unbiased account difficult - by murky I refer to the numerous difficulties from a very aggressive Tolkien Estate that saw any thing as an infringement (anyone remember "the phone is circular metal banding"?) to financial impropriety (Williams and the Blumes) to ridiculous licence protections (which have since been discarded as one cannot copyright a mechanic anymore). There are few people left who can attest to The Lake Geneva campaign - Mentzer and Kuntz and they relate entirely different histories and experiences of that time compared to Kask and, reportedly, Arneson: Who is right? Depends on what one chooses to believe . . . the truth is unknowable. Is it not amusing when certain posters constantly refer to Gary Gygax forgetting that it's been over 30 years since he wrote the introduction to the AD&D DMG. People change and their ideas change yet GG is held to account constantly for thus frozen moment in time - he wrote other games including Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary yet no one quotes him from any of those? (I have copies of both and can say that both games are very different from each other and from D&D/AD&D). NB: GG didn't write the abortive cyborg command he lent his name to a property in the hopes of generating revenue Aaron
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Dec 31, 2013 7:57:54 GMT -8
As for revisionist historians, revisionism is a term coined by the old guard to devalue what the young'uns are doing. Never mind that every generation will tell their own stories and retell the old ones differently (which is why history can't be objective and no good historian will ever say so), calling something revisionist is simply the attempt to keep your own story at the tip of the meaning-determining pyramid of stories battling for interpretative supremacy. As to the golden age of gaming or whatever, I find it really amusing that people that 'weren't there' in 'the day' have such vivid opinions as to what did and did not 'go down'. Kinda reminds me of my mum, uncle and aunt laughing uproariously at people 20 years their junior discussing what it was like in the 60's . . . I think my uncle summed it up nicely "you weren't there sunshine you know jack shit, truth is nothings really changed it was just as shit then as it is now . . . why do think we all got so fucking stoned? . . . ". This post is going to be way too long, but oh well. I agree with a lot of things you said (and I'm going to repeat some of them in this argument), but here's the thing: While your uncle tells you they were all getting stoned, in general, it was white middle class kids with a college education who were getting stoned. Overall, only a fairly small minority of the overall population. Even within that same generation, not so much everyone. Young Americans for Freedom, if you just look at the US, and there were many organizations like it. The 60s aren't the inaugural decade of the New Right for nothing. Of course, "if you remember the 60s, you weren't really there" is the story that got perpetuated afterwards and it is the story that now makes our image of the 60s, even if it doesn't have much to do with reality. I'd also debate the 60s being as shite as it is now, I believe we're much better off overall. The 60s were full of violence, discrimination and hate. Still, the point is, "being there" doesn't make you an authority. Memory is a fickle bitch, even if someone isn't outright lying to make themselves look better (look at the "it was a black guy" phenomenon when US Americans are questioned after crimes). Being there probably hinders your understanding of what happened in key areas, because you don't really get all the information available. Oral History generally doesn't take eyewitness accounts as fact or to prove a point for that reason. Oral History is valuable because it can show us certain attitudes towards the past and how that past is constructed by the source. None of which says ANYTHING about the actual past. The stories we tell are are mostly normative, we fit reality into our story, not the other way around. There's a great book about German families and the stories they tell about their Nazi relatives over the generations. It's called "Opa war kein Nazi" (Granddad was no Nazi) and that's all you need to know about it to know what the result was. There's interviews with people who were schoolkids when the Reichskristallnacht happened and old people when the interviews took place. The interviews were about their way to school. Violence and devastation? Very hard to find in these recollections. There's a narrative about the 60s, to which many memories were adapted, without thinking about it or being aware of it as well. And there's a narrative about early roleplaying as well. Should we ignore it? No, but neither should we just buy into it because people "who were there" tell us what it was and what it meant. That meaning is constructed afterwards by retelling stories, by people who have an interest in having that time mean something, be that interest commercial, ideological or personal. In the case of the "golden age of gaming" narrative, the purpose is pretty clear. No, I wasn't there, I still reject that narrative and I have every right to. That doesn't mean I believe that time to be a horrible cesspool of powergaming munchkinism, as I said above, I don't think it was a particularly good or bad time either way (those aren't very interesting terms anyway), which means I wouldn't go so far as Arcona, but experience and hobby in its infancy and relative level and so on. If someone has a problem with that, they are welcome to try and make a coherent counter-argument. They are not welcome to tell me I wasn't there and my opinion is worth shit for that very reason. What I do believe is that the terms we use today and the same terms used then don't mean the same thing. A discussion about fantasy and freedom in roleplaying in the 70s happens with completely different mental horizons than today. The Tim Kask quote is telling in that regard. The central term there is not narrative or anything related to it, it's D&D as the "unparalleled challenge" due to fictional uncertainty. Today, nobody would talk about their game that way. Of course all of this just shows how much the hobby has developed. I think it would extremely interesting to pick an Indie-ish system and have a tournament based on how well they roleplay either a given scenario, pre-approved concept, or free-for-all concept. I imagine this being somewhere along the continuum of "one-act play" or improv competitions. Instead of being scored by the GM, the "party" (which includes the GM) receives points from an impartial panel of judges (or a popular vote) that reviews either the live play or a recording of the play. Points would be awarded based on a rubric. Having done various performance based competitions in school (debate, duet acting, one act play, prose recital, etc) I see no reason that this couldn't work. I'm afraid it's not as easy. Many of the indie games require you to be personally vulnerable to fully participate in play. Monsterhearts, you're playing teenagers figuring out their sexuality, say you describe a scene that you think is hot. Dogs in the Vineyard, you're talking about religious dogma, in all likelihood far removed from your own, and the tensions that result. My Life With Master you're talking about loneliness, victimization and the violence that result. If someone sits next to you and judges what you're doing, you're not going to say what you really want to say, you're going to say what you believe this person wants to hear, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise. It's one thing to say "Bob played a great minion, I loved watching his story develop", it's something entirely different to say "Bob did really well, he gets 10 points from me." If it's one of the vulnerable moments cited above, you're more than likely going to veil yourself and just go with something you believe everyone at the table is ok with. "Nobody gets hurt" instead of "I will not abandon you", and that wasn't the point of the game either. Even if you take something like FATE and pick an uncontroversial topic for your game, this, imho, is an activity that best goes unmarked, because it's not about learning and reproducing something, it's a more general thing about social interaction, skills related to that and personal character. We are not going to teach them that they can "win" at roleplaying, are we?
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Dec 31, 2013 9:18:23 GMT -8
I've really been enjoying this thread. A fine example of what makes the Happy Jacks forums so interesting; intricate, detailed, well thought out discussion that has nothing to do with the original post . I currently see the stream of consciousness here as thus: The OP: How to Make d20 less painful to deal with ? Step 1: d20 Hate vs d20 Like Step 2: The Greybeards vs the Young & Restless Step 3: Old School Gaming vs New School If we can just bring it all back to GM=S the circle will be complete. (or not necessarily a circle but a collection of convoluted tubes...) So here goes. If the GM is not enjoying the game...change it. If the group doesn't want to play a different game then that group could be suspect of being decrepit, stuck in the mud grey beards. I don't think I have ever played ANY RPG as a RAW game. That's one of the major aspects about RPGs that I most enjoy. Pathfinder for example: I really would like to see characters have to take Disads that they will be rewarded for playing during the game. I like the idea of Bennies but hate the "here's a cookie" aspect that happens when they are rewarded DURING PLAY. That's why I give bennies for "side bar" between session character development. We just started recording a SHORT podcast before our regular weekly AP Pathfinder games. My hope is to get the players to discuss a general topic as it applies to what has happened in the previous game. There are times when the perceived navel gazing that happens on these forums becomes so convoluted that I just can't see how the topic discussed translates to an actual gaming experience. I was rather happy to learn that the benny/side bar aspect of my games has been thoroughly enjoyed by the players. I'm not trying to be a Pathfinder apologist. The desire to make the gaming experience for all at the table (including myself) enjoyable is my primary goal. It matters not to me what game is played as long as we are having fun. So, as I have said elsewhere make the players a deal that you will run X number of Pathfinder sessions (and tweak the hell out of it if you want) with the tacit agreement that the ol' stalwarts will give a different game a try for X number. My more mulish players balked initially at a game of Savage Worlds (Where's the Fuckin' d20!?!?!) but three games in they loved it. Finally, along the lines of critically assessing RP skill. I'm involved with the Drama, Debate, Forensic team here at the local school. There are in fact numerous scoring rubrics for judging improv, presentation and such. While I would NEVER want to actually competitively want to judge RPGs there are numerous points from those assessments that would in my opinion make roleplaying around the table better. Honestly, (and this was the main topic of our short round table podcast) online gaming vs face to face big difference for me has been the creation of a recording of the game that I can go back to and assess. How often did I use a character voice ? How often did I talk in the third person ? How often did I step on other players and try to dominate the game ? How much time was spent out of character ? When GMing what do my descriptions sound like ? Do I make the combat narrative or does it wallow in number crunching ? I'm not saying this is for everyone. "Dude I just wanna roll some dice and kill shit." Fine. But, as a musician, DJ, actor I find great opportunity in getting the chance to evaluate my "performance" and think about what do I like not like about it. I found it interesting that Stu said he's never listened to his AP of the L5R game...I've listened to my L5R APs, Pathfinder, and Jackercon games. One because I find them entertaining. Two because I happen to love the sound of my own voice . But mostly they provide fuel for the next game of what to do and not to do... There! Thread again thoroughly derailed with a wall of text. I eagerly await the complaining from Australia. Cheers, Curt.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 31, 2013 9:41:40 GMT -8
ah, wow, fuck . . . which thread is this one now? guitarspider- I may have been a bit harsh but what I was getting at is that I find it a bit odd that some people declare old schools gaming has having been like x, y or z. It may very well have been, but like today it was probably also like a, b, or c or any number of variants in between. I chose one historical example because it is the quickest one I could find that has a metric fuck tonne of contradictory opinions from whether Kennedy was 'good or bad', whether the world would have been 'better or worse' with or without him to who shot him and why . . . no one can know the former, only speculate and as to who actually shot him? only the guy who did really knows - everything else is just a best guess. I suppose I just found the rather strong opinions regarding old vs new gaming, with their various posited 'proofs', a bit . . . well . . . 'opinionated' in an open discussion. Rather they were/are opinions masquerading as facts, sharing an opinion fine provided its communicated as just that . . . mind you this is all just IMHO (BTW my Uncle wasn't middle class, at that time he was a printers apprentice in NZ . . . who then decided 'fuck this I'm gonna do a 'Jack Crack' and go 'On the Road' . . . a long, world spanning and weird time was had by all those he traveled with) D.T. Pints - you've . . . you've . . . fucking usurped the Australian prime directive cunt - the first right to derail should always go to the caged Australians. However (*sighs heavily*), if derail you must: That's how you do it!!!!! Aaron PS: Invoking G=S is the same as tearing an interdimensional rift in the fabric of space time powered by a TARDIS re-purposed as a paradox engine: 'the sound of drums'
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 31, 2013 10:01:26 GMT -8
BTW D.T. Pints - do I recall correctly that you have had personal dealings with the operation of a 'print-on-demand' bookshop in the Alaska? I ask as a barely formed idea is rattling around my head in conjunction with a step-father that is willing to invest in a new business idea that has merit . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jan 7, 2014 16:13:10 GMT -8
Finally, along the lines of critically assessing RP skill. I'm involved with the Drama, Debate, Forensic team here at the local school. There are in fact numerous scoring rubrics for judging improv, presentation and such. While I would NEVER want to actually competitively want to judge RPGs there are numerous points from those assessments that would in my opinion make roleplaying around the table better. Skills transfer, sure, but I do think there's a difference. On stage, the actor is not himself, he embodies a different person and there's no sense of the actor as a person being important. At the roleplaying table, the player, the person behind the role, is very much present and important, even if he never leaves character. That case gets a bit murky with improv of course, but still. If you want one thing as a teacher it's for the pupil not to feel judged personally, but to feel assessed for skills that can be worked on. And I think that distinction is much harder to get in roleplaying games. I guess you can still assess skills with roleplaying, but personally, that's not what I'll be using these games in the classroom for. The right kind of game can really bring pupils to consider issues they had never thought about, or hadn't really understood on a gut level. For instance, it's really hard to get people to understand what it might mean to be the colonized instead of the colonizers. Run Dog Eat Dog, problem solved. Obviously that's more than a bit simplistic with classes of 30, but that's where I see the main potential for roleplaying games in a school context. Widening horizons and thus helping pupils grow. guitarspider- I may have been a bit harsh but what I was getting at is that I find it a bit odd that some people declare old schools gaming has having been like x, y or z. It may very well have been, but like today it was probably also like a, b, or c or any number of variants in between. I suppose I just found the rather strong opinions regarding old vs new gaming, with their various posited 'proofs', a bit . . . well . . . 'opinionated' in an open discussion. Rather they were/are opinions masquerading as facts, sharing an opinion fine provided its communicated as just that . . . mind you this is all just IMHO I do have strong opinions, so I may have come across a bit strongly, but it wasn't my intention to close down the discussion or to make definite statements like others (on both sides of the argument). If I came across that way, that's a communication failure on my part. As I said, I agree with much of what you said, including that old-school gaming probably wasn't one thing (be that the greatest thing since sliced narrative or the worst time anyone ever had), just as gaming today isn't always one thing. I'm perfectly happy to have my opinion about old-school gaming challenged, and I certainly don't assume my position is the be-all and end-all. I've not been convinced by any arguments in this thread that my position is not tenable though. As for implying "you weren't there", it kind of closes down the discussion from an assumed position of authority, and I do get prickly if someone tries that, particularly if the justification is as nonsensical as "you weren't there." Now, you didn't exactly do that, but I hope that explains my rant. ;)I think we were both trying to keep the discussion going, we just came at it from different angles. No big deal. Well, I did say "generally" for a reason, else I would have used "only". I'm usually precise with my language. I guess it was a bit unfair of me to pick apart that quote, and I wasn't really intending to talk about what your uncle said as such, but it conforms to a 60s clichee that is very powerful, but doesn't really hold across the board if looked at closely. So I hope you get why I went on that huge rant about the non-justification of "being there" as a foundation for authority*, why it relates to "golden age of gaming" and hope you didn't take offence. *Kennedy's assassination is a great example of that as well. The people who were there mostly didn't have a clue what happened, except that suddenly someone was shooting and the car sped up.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 7, 2014 16:49:07 GMT -8
guitarspider Well I actually wasn't saying it as 'you weren't there' to you personally . . . To be bluntly honest the comment that set me off wasn't actually yours . . . It was some else's, an admittedly much younger player who made an observation about what gaming was like 'back then' based on an extract from a rule book from 'those days'. I just found such an opinion' interesting' as, if I guess their age correctly, then at that point in time the sperm had yet to meet the egg. I suppose a better explanation would be "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" - just because a set of brief rules crafted on a budget, time constraints and in an atmosphere of developing the hobby for the first time didn't say 'this is how you RP' doesn't mean it didn't happen. As I say I can't speak for OD&D but I can vouch for 1e . . . we definitely RP'ed back then in my neck of the woods . . . As far as RP goes I can't say that that has changed much at all. What has changed is that there are more, and different, interesting mechanics, new genres and the presentation of products is miles ahead. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Jan 8, 2014 7:34:37 GMT -8
Finally, along the lines of critically assessing RP skill. I'm involved with the Drama, Debate, Forensic team here at the local school. There are in fact numerous scoring rubrics for judging improv, presentation and such. While I would NEVER want to actually competitively want to judge RPGs there are numerous points from those assessments that would in my opinion make roleplaying around the table better. Skills transfer, sure, but I do think there's a difference. On stage, the actor is not himself, he embodies a different person and there's no sense of the actor as a person being important. At the roleplaying table, the player, the person behind the role, is very much present and important, even if he never leaves character. That case gets a bit murky with improv of course, but still. If you want one thing as a teacher it's for the pupil not to feel judged personally, but to feel assessed for skills that can be worked on. And I think that distinction is much harder to get in roleplaying games. First, for the record, I don't know that I would really like to play in a judged game, although I'd be interested in doing it at least once. I do know that I definitely would not want to play in a D&D tournament as it is judged today. I think judging based on the roleplaying experience of the game would be interesting. Well, having played a lot (although by no means as much as some people here) of roleplaying games and having acted in a pretty good number of plays, improvs, performances, etc. I think that the distinction isn't quite as...definite...as guitarspider is suggesting. I know that the whole reason I got into acting was to explore characters and situations which I couldn't do in normal life. That's pretty much the exact same reason I keep being drawn to rpgs. As to the statement that 'playing story-telling rpgs requires emotional investment and vulnerability, but acting in plays doesn't'.... I have to completely disagree. Some players can play rpgs without becoming emotionally vulnerable, but they can still be telling a great story. At the same time, I would say my two best performances on stage, ever, were in periods in my life in which I was working through some serious "redefine the self" shit. By working through those emotions, drives, fears, etc on stage I was able to give what I've been told were some very compelling and haunting performances. Furthermore, my best player in my seasonal group that met for the last month was....the wanna-be actor who has been taking improv classes and working on student-film movie sets full-time for the last year. All that said, I'm not doing competitive acting, but I am still playing rpgs. Maybe you're right that it's something people wouldn't want to do.
|
|