Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 19:41:15 GMT -8
The very wording of the question seems to me to indicate that there are bigger problems than what game to play. They're called interpersonal skills, people. Use them. How is this different than a group discussing any other question? I don't hear people ask about "rights" to choose the movie, or what game the group will play at the beach, or whether to go surfing or skiing (N.B.: that is actually a realistic choice here in Southern California--you can even do both in the same day). Why would a GM run a game he doesn't like? Why would a player play a game he doesn't like? And why wouldn't people make reasonable compromises with their friends?
I suppose our custom was that someone who wanted to run a game would announce it, including the system. If there was enough interest, it happened, if there wasn't, it didn't. If you wanted to GM, you had to propose something people wanted to play. If you wanted to play, you had to accept something someone wanted to GM (and that other people wanted to play as well). Kind of like telling your friends you'd like to have a backyard volleyball game, isn't it? It's not specific to gaming.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Dec 31, 2013 7:16:10 GMT -8
@ CC: I dont get what you mean. To play any game you must learn the rules. They can be explained to you, you can read them yourself or you can learn them while playing but you need to do so eventually. If the issue is a LD do what other people with them do... find other ways to learn without having to read or memorise. And RPGs are Role Playing - Games - . Note, as I agreed with Grog, I believe RPGs are games just not an every man for himself competition that requires a player to be armed with a bible. I clarify this here and now because I am not arguing RPGs are games without rules. I am positng that learning the game be a group experience rather than a reading experience alone on the toilet. The play can handle the explanation. Here is an example: happyjacks.proboards.com/post/28863In my day, as old as I feel, the social aspect of RPGs (recruitment, learning, collectively having fun together) did not have to be explained by a professor/Game Designer. (Cue that Gygax quote of that time.) And we, my group of friends, were happier for it. This is my approach today, which many seem to find incomprehensible judging by their arguments. It's not specific to gaming. You're right, if I can be allowed to say that. And it does get accentuated in role-playing games play. "You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation." -- Plato
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Dec 31, 2013 7:33:12 GMT -8
So you (for reasons you explained earlier) cant learn the rules on your own but rather wish to do so in game (which is fine just as long as it doesnt drag a session down). Why do you insist on calling people who do in fact spend their time (also their leisure time over which you have no say) doing so names?
From what I have seen in over a dozen posts of yours you are either a) a new player that will learn the game within the group or b) a professional gamer/munchkin/ruleslaywer. No middle ground, no other option no nothing... and god forbid the new player shows interest and picks up the book Gygax wrote (gah! Heresy, he wrote rules!!!!) abd reads him for himself he automatically becomes a douchebag elitist power gamer...
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Dec 31, 2013 8:08:34 GMT -8
Why do you insist on calling people who do in fact spend their time (also their leisure time over which you have no say) doing so names? What names? You mean terms in common use within the hobby like munchkin? I know a munchkin in Poland who is not a bad guy. Not a bad role-player. He can, with some resistance/reluctance, play an engrossing game without haggling the fine points of what a Henchman is RAW compared to a Hireling RAW and just go with the flow in the story (letting the interaction between his PC and the NPC determine the relationship). This affable man is still a munchkin. I know another munchkin that broke the original group I had 4 years ago... who constantly pointed out things that were not a problem while I tried to grapple with this new (to me) concept that the game had nothing to do with the gestalt at the table for some players. The game to them was like a study group at university when everyone studies alone and then gets together. This is not paradigm of this type of game collaboration. He broke the group by fixating on what was not broken, intimating it would be. And then, tossed me from his group because I did not come to his study class (RPG) as a rules expert. This despite the fact I was accused of metagaming (the Dryad story if anyone recalls the posts). He could not grok what my affable munchkin also had difficulty understanding - though, to his credit, he did not act like that guy. He had a taste of munchkin medicine with a Norwegian at the table who could not go with the flow as he had learned. It bogged the game into minutia. The game is the sum of its parts - not separate from the player. I think Kainguru pointed that out in a post a long time ago (if anyone who read it now recalls). From what I have seen in over a dozen posts of yours you are either a) a new player that will learn the game within the group or b) a professional gamer/munchkin/ruleslaywer. No middle ground, no other option no nothing... Sadly, my experience in Poland. and god forbid the new player shows interest and picks up the book Gygax wrote (gah! Heresy, he wrote rules!!!!) abd reads him for himself he automatically becomes a douchebag elitist power gamer... 1 - you are putting words into my mouth from your passion for the game from your munchkin point of view (despite your affableness). Fair enough. We all do it. But I will point it out here now this time. I do not need to be arguing with people with whom I fundamentally agree with just because they heard your interpretation of my words. 2 - The rules Gygax wrote are there are no rules. Each DMG guidebook has a different iteration rules according to RAW. Its clever gimmick is to say there is no wrong way to play just the play that’s fun at the table. Note, you can play AD&D 1e as a competitive munchkin too, if that is the GM’s decision by providing everyone all the rules beforehand and trying to pimp out the adversaries. BUT you can also just as easily RAW play it led by story exploration.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Dec 31, 2013 10:58:51 GMT -8
What names? You mean terms in common use within the hobby like munchkin? Oh please. Cut the bullshit. Munchkin is a derogatory term, and you know it. It doesn't mean that the guy in question is irredeemably bad, but it's still not a bloody compliment. So cut the innocent act and at least cop to your prejudices. Reading the rules to the game doesn't make you a munchkin. Period. It makes you someone who read the rules. Munchkin is in the application of said rules. A munchkin isn't the advocate of RAW that you seem to think he is. Because, they'll happily ignore rules that hurt them.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Dec 31, 2013 11:03:29 GMT -8
A munchkin isn't the advocate of RAW that you seem to think he is. Because, they'll happily ignore rules that hurt them. And I say munchkin. That is the style of play.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 31, 2013 11:11:47 GMT -8
'nuff said
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 12:30:09 GMT -8
Munchkin is about intent and use only. You can not even know the rules very well but be a munchkin, if you are trying to get as much power and stuff as you can. Knowing the rules well simply makes you a more capable munchkin. But munchkins usually understand adage "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. And if both are against you, pound on the table." A munchkin who doesn't know the rules well is handicapped in arguing the law, but is certain to still try to argue the facts ("that rule doesn't make sense, because a 7.62 round can penetrate blah blah blah") and/or pound on the table ("That's not fair! It's not fun!") for all he's worth.
"Rules-lawyer" is the specific term for someone who insists on the RAW with hair-splitting accuracy. They are often munchkins since being a rules-lawyer makes a munchkin more effective at his chosen hobby of breaking the balance of the game for fun and amusement, but they needn't be. I've had people argue with me that their character should be dead by the exact rules in force even though I said otherwise--that is being a rules-lawyer but not a munchkin.
And there are people who know the rules well and are neither, and they can be a joy to have around. Someone who isn't obnoxious or self-serving about arguing the rules isn't a munchkin they're just knowledgeable players. They bring reasonable, legal characters that the GM doesn't have to debug and re-write before they can be played. They help a new player play his character, explain the rules while the GM is busy with someone else, and so on. If the GM can't remember a rule they'll help out so the game doesn't stop while he looks it up, but shut up if it's a poor time to interrupt. We'd all like knowledgeable players that aren't munchkins or rules-lawyers. It makes the GMs job easier. A GM who doesn't like knowledgeable players very likely has control issues that go far beyond the gaming table.
I don't believe I've ever heard those terms used differently than I've described. If you use them otherwise I suspect you're speaking a private language nobody else is going to understand. Esoteric languages can be a fun hobby--but they're not useful for communication.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 31, 2013 12:56:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Dec 31, 2013 14:34:00 GMT -8
"Rules-lawyer" is the specific term for someone who insists on the RAW with hair-splitting accuracy. They are often munchkins since being a rules-lawyer makes a munchkin more effective at his chosen hobby of breaking the balance of the game for fun and amusement, but they needn't be. I'd quibble over the "often" part... But that's about it. And I say munchkin. That is the style of play. Munchkin is a style of play, but be honest, you're not using it that way. Or, you're badly mangling whatever point you're trying to make. You keep saying that anyone who reads the rules is a munchkin and that's absolute bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 1, 2014 4:29:39 GMT -8
. . . and don't forget that rather unique definition of munchkin, as undesirable, is at absolute odds with being a 'skilled player', which is described as being desirable. But I suppose it depends on which discussion is being had (and lost) as to which straw man is to be wheeled out to dance around. An insult is an insult no matter how couched in hyperbole it is. At least the rest of us just call each other a cunt and then move past it. Stu got an apology, which was interesting. . . shame such magnanimous gestures are never offered to the actual targets of the covert insults. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jan 2, 2014 9:11:21 GMT -8
"Rules-lawyer" is the specific term for someone who insists on the RAW with hair-splitting accuracy. They are often munchkins since being a rules-lawyer makes a munchkin more effective at his chosen hobby of breaking the balance of the game for fun and amusement, but they needn't be. I'd quibble over the "often" part... But that's about it. And I say munchkin. That is the style of play. Munchkin is a style of play, but be honest, you're not using it that way. Or, you're badly mangling whatever point you're trying to make. You keep saying that anyone who reads the rules is a munchkin and that's absolute bullshit. Quote me, please. I would like to see where I say that, ayslyn.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jan 2, 2014 10:22:35 GMT -8
Munchkin is about intent and use only. You can not even know the rules very well but be a munchkin, if you are trying to get as much power and stuff as you can. Knowing the rules well simply makes you a more capable munchkin. But munchkins usually understand adage "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. And if both are against you, pound on the table." A munchkin who doesn't know the rules well is handicapped in arguing the law, but is certain to still try to argue the facts ("that rule doesn't make sense, because a 7.62 round can penetrate blah blah blah") and/or pound on the table ("That's not fair! It's not fun!") for all he's worth. "Rules-lawyer" is the specific term for someone who insists on the RAW with hair-splitting accuracy. They are often munchkins since being a rules-lawyer makes a munchkin more effective at his chosen hobby of breaking the balance of the game for fun and amusement, but they needn't be. I've had people argue with me that their character should be dead by the exact rules in force even though I said otherwise--that is being a rules-lawyer but not a munchkin. And there are people who know the rules well and are neither, and they can be a joy to have around. Someone who isn't obnoxious or self-serving about arguing the rules isn't a munchkin they're just knowledgeable players. They bring reasonable, legal characters that the GM doesn't have to debug and re-write before they can be played. They help a new player play his character, explain the rules while the GM is busy with someone else, and so on. If the GM can't remember a rule they'll help out so the game doesn't stop while he looks it up, but shut up if it's a poor time to interrupt. We'd all like knowledgeable players that aren't munchkins or rules-lawyers. It makes the GMs job easier. A GM who doesn't like knowledgeable players very likely has control issues that go far beyond the gaming table. I don't believe I've ever heard those terms used differently than I've described. If you use them otherwise I suspect you're speaking a private language nobody else is going to understand. Esoteric languages can be a fun hobby--but they're not useful for communication. All of it is true. When I started with my first group, all were knowledgeable players four years ago. They spoke about rules in the abstract between thenselves, verbally arguing the min-maxed possibilities of many different roles, easily shuffling themselves between roles. I equate this behaviour with people who argue the physics of Star Trek. That's how I understand it. Nothing wrong with that behaviour. And, having said there is nothing wrong with that implies that there is something wrong with it but, like Seinfeld, I am not making a judgment on it any more than to say these guys were knowledgeable. I was just grasping the 3.5 system. This means I was trying to understand how I would choose to apply rules and how the rules I would choose to apply would affect the game at the table and the relationship between the players. My game was a way to meet people. Engrossing discussion at the table about the situation the players saw themselves in was an essential system element trumping RAW (immersion). My analogy would approximate a game like charades in terms of player engrossment. Rattling off rules and planning epic feat trees is kind of the antithesis of the engagement I wanted with the people I met. Having only ever played role-playing games using conversational language, I was a little nervous about such things as feats and how those might affect the conversation of the game. (I have referenced this conversation inherent in my system of play in my earlier posts.) Anyway. That’s how I was. That’s how they were. I asked two of them if they would help me out. The first two players did. One was the affable munchkin to whom I have referred in this topic. And yes, when the kobolds were attacking him from atop tombs, he forgot the +2 bonus. When his character had the same advantage of height in attack, he made sure it was calculated. So, yes, this knowledgeable player was a munchkin. And I repeat, munchkinism is a style of play. In AD&D 1e, to be a munchkin one rolled 18s for ability scores and fudged dice rolls. So much had changed in the new D&D game that required me to keep track well beyond simple time keeping. If there was a grasping for treasure, this was not munchkinism so much as it was the decision of the DM to include such goodies. Munchkinism might equate Monty Haul adventure designs. Munchkinism as a style of play: I had one player who had not played in some time. When he came to play at my table he was so caught up in minutia that the game stopped. The same psychology that would not let him relax and play among others made him habitually late. He wanted to be a leader of the game but was not knowledgeable enough about it to do so on his own and too nervous a person to interact and let it happen. A game system running on yes, and according to the possibilities raised in tabletop conversation player-to-player was too much stress for him and it impeded his enjoyment. And it impeded the enjoyment of others, myself included. Even my affable munchkin – who returned to my group after 4 years with the Pathfinder roll playing group – was upset with him. At this stage I had had my interview (what jazzisblues terms a quiet discussion over coffee) with him and his expectations from my game were crystal clear. I had my fear of him to work through as well. That said, I do not believe he was playing a munchkin at my game upon his return, though the first example of the kobold and the +2 references him. And about that first group, it ended up becoming a nerd fest of too many chiefs and not enough indians. They formed a Pathfinder game (where I too played, abiding by my own **CENSORED** etiquette of his house his rules, until I had to know the rules and was uninvited after 2 years of playing the only PC that had not died in the game). I do not go in for discussing the extremis of game design when I want to relax and play a game. If I did, I would take up a game like FATAL. So my experience with knowledgeable players is not exactly fun times. As with everything my context informs my perception – much like the new-to-the-hobby people who fled the Sheldon Coopers of RPGs. After one session of any RPG you care to name, I will know the dice to roll and when to roll those dice. If I need a spell list I will have it. If I need equipment, I will visit the in-game store. Everything else I need to know I can likewise use my imagination, my ears and my brain to figure out in-game. To others this is not fun. To others still this is game heresy. From these others you have my context.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 2, 2014 14:51:47 GMT -8
*reads it carefully* . . . . *reads it again* . . . Nope, can't see where it refers to the martyrdom of any HJ board members . . . shit, that means we're not the center of the RPG universe those fucking phenomenologists lied to me . . . *walks off to strangle a wallaby for fun and profit* Aaron
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Jan 2, 2014 15:30:33 GMT -8
In my experience the GM chooses the system. In the scenario described by SavageCheerleader, where it is an established group with more than one GM, I think you should be more firm about it. If the GM is going to run the game, they should get to choose. That's just one of the perks of GM'ing. Do they want you to run a game or not?
|
|