SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on Dec 29, 2014 6:00:27 GMT -8
My first thought on the first email?
One cannot have a meaningful campaign unless every rule is used.
In terms of using all the rules, I hate fiddly rules. I'd rather get to the game. When talking about ammo I generally assume you can retrieve and repair your arrows or bolts or whatever in most situations, unless I'm looking for a gritty resource important game I ignore it. Generally I have them keep track in a fight, but let them sort of "reload" afterward. Occasionally I'll mention that an arrow is beyond repair and tell them to mark it off, but generally I hand waive it.
We just recently had to get rid of a person in our game group. We got rid of him for several reasons, not the least of which was him not chipping on group meals while eating the lion's share of them, not chipping in on a group vacation, being a power gaming murder hobo, etc. Basically everyone was sick of him and his antics. We talked about it as a group, decided that we didn't want him in the group anymore no matter what. So one member of the group approached him and told him what we had decided and did it in a very adult manner, explaining our reasoning, the guy still flipped a lid and ran to facebook to talk trash. There's no winning with people like that.
|
|
|
Post by archmagezemoc on Dec 29, 2014 7:20:17 GMT -8
Just saw this post, which means the new episodes up! Downloading now, and since I've got no work today. . . . TIME TO GO HIKING HUZZAH! Time to get some fresh air for muh lungs (heheheh) and some DBags for my ears !
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 30, 2014 14:39:02 GMT -8
|
|
baldyr
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 23
|
Post by baldyr on Dec 30, 2014 14:50:52 GMT -8
Just saw this post, which means the new episodes up! Downloading now, and since I've got no work today. . . . The cool kids (like me) actually listen live. Hanging out in the chat-room is quite fun, actually, especially when the hosts participate in the chat. Case in point; Someone was airing their disappointment with there being no Gina Cam set-up. I commented, in the chat-room, that it was most likely due to a bad hair day. And the hostess actually replied. (I'm not gonna convey what the comment was, obviously. Come join the chat-room if you wanna be on the inside, as the broadcast happens live. )
|
|
mrcj
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 173
|
Post by mrcj on Dec 31, 2014 6:13:31 GMT -8
Keeping track of arrows, yes in a resource important game, or at level one where no one has any money. It always seemed to me that the fighters get off a little easier when it comes to that. In the old days when GURPS had higher active defense two knights in full plate could go at it for a long time and never land a blow. If a resource tracking game I'd have the players track the damage to their shields and eventually need to replace them, as well as sharpen weapons etc. Below is a link to Ivanhoe, the fight in question starts at just before the about 3:30 minute mark look what happens to Ivanhoe's shield when he faces off against a knight carrying a morning star, in game terms that things needs to be replaced: www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS1Fhzy1Ss8
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Dec 31, 2014 7:26:23 GMT -8
I'd love to listen live, baldyr - but unfortunately since the recording time switch there's a work conflict... and youtube streaming kills my phone's battery. mrcj - as far as shields being beat to hell in combat, my go-to example is always the duel in The 13th Warrior.
|
|
baldyr
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 23
|
Post by baldyr on Dec 31, 2014 12:46:04 GMT -8
I'm currently playing a system where weapon damage is part of the character damage system. The way it is set up, is that when ever a player character takes some form av damage (like bodily injury in martial combat), the player has the option to alleviate - or to roll-back completely - any damage taken. This is called suffering a "consequence" from the attack, and could be some physical (or mental, for non-physical damage) disability, or perhaps that some piece of equipment (weapon, shield or armor for combat) is damaged or destroyed. The point is that the players gets to decide what the consequence will be.
So, damage to equipment - like a shield - could then be house-ruled to be a way to avoid damage in whatever system you're running. If you have your shield be smashed you don't have to have your character be crushed, kind of a deal. It works to the character's advantage and doesn't require any book keeping or subtracting equipment HP. No player will be pissed off for losing their equipment, at least.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Dec 31, 2014 17:28:56 GMT -8
I'm currently playing a system where weapon damage is part of the character damage system. The way it is set up, is that when ever a player character takes some form av damage (like bodily injury in martial combat), the player has the option to alleviate - or to roll-back completely - any damage taken. Sounds neat. I noticed a Dungeon World mechanic like that, but specifically for one of the character "classes". I think it's an advanced fighter move (i.e. you could choose this ability when you level up at some point), where you can negate the damage to yourself by reducing your effective Armor by 1. Dungeon World has armor that does damage reduction (leather = 1, chain = 2, plate = 3, shield = 1). I.e. you could negate personal damage from an attack by changing your chain mail from armor 2 to 1. Another instance of this would destroy the armor. You could always built in a way to repair the armor as well (cost and resources), but I don't see why this whole thing couldn't easily extend to other systems, but I might limit it to those that can effectively use that armor (fighter types?)... or not.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Jan 2, 2015 2:38:14 GMT -8
On the topic: I'm generallly against house ruling, but if keeping track of ammo is getting people down, seriously look at the game you are playing. It maybe that game isn't the one for you. Feng Shui on the other hand has a great ammo rule, and the Bag O'Guns rules for people who hate encumbrance rules. Similarly Cortex Plus Firefly rules only have people run out of ammo when it's cool to do so. But there's this thing where players like to be munchkins in more crunchy games, using the rules to create awesome characters, and then say "let's ignore encumbrance" - that's actually cheating.
And Stork and JiB are right, designers have spent more time play testing the ruleset, and understanding the system, before publication than most of us will do playing it. So MOST of us are entirely unqualified to houserule.
That said, it's our table, we can do what we want with the rules. My point is we Probably wasted our money buying them, if we're going to muck about with them.
|
|
baldyr
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 23
|
Post by baldyr on Jan 2, 2015 3:38:57 GMT -8
I don't think I've ever played any RPG for any length of time without house ruling them. I do try to use the games as written, initially, but most of the time it's quite clear what doesn't work all that well, what could be improved upon and what simply doesn't suite me. So I tend to house rule quite a bit. I equate it to fine-tuning the system for my specific needs and play-style. Because no game will be written with me in mind, especially as I may not even like the things the author might expect from a role-player.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 2, 2015 6:24:50 GMT -8
that's actually cheating. Except for the fact that each of those games (I'm actually unaware of any that don't include this) have a rule 0 of "If you don't like a system/rule, don't use it." So, no... It's not cheating. The expectation, by the designers, is that you will make the rules your own. I've met a few designers and chatted with them. I feel quite confident that the vast majority of them would disagree with you, Stork, and JiB quite strongly. Hell, one of them house rules the very system he created.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 2, 2015 8:51:09 GMT -8
that's actually cheating. Except for the fact that each of those games (I'm actually unaware of any that don't include this) have a rule 0 of "If you don't like a system/rule, don't use it." So, no... It's not cheating. The expectation, by the designers, is that you will make the rules your own. I've met a few designers and chatted with them. I feel quite confident that the vast majority of them would disagree with you, Stork, and JiB quite strongly. Hell, one of them house rules the very system he created. Besides what is a game designer? - a hobbyist, like any of us, lucky enough to have turned their hobby into a job. Now video game designers are different kettle of fish, theirs is a disciplined and focused field based on market research and gamer feedback in cooperation with the coders and artists . . . because of the constraints of the medium. Are these lessons universally applicable?, can the game design knowledge from video games and board games and miniatures and tabletop games inform each other?. Theoretically I'd like to say yes BUT in application I'll just point a finger at 4e (as the most obvious blunder of several attempts at cross media hybridization - 'monopoly the video game' is another). As to houseruling: if it's not working at your table fix it . . .your fix may not work at another table, that's what makes it a houserule. I don't know the Pool situation in the US but I know in Oz and the UK you had better check what the local rules are, if you're playing away from home, before you chalk up your cue . . . none of these variants are broken and they're all still Pool. Aaron
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Jan 2, 2015 11:39:26 GMT -8
that's actually cheating. Except for the fact that each of those games (I'm actually unaware of any that don't include this) have a rule 0 of "If you don't like a system/rule, don't use it." So, no... It's not cheating. The expectation, by the designers, is that you will make the rules your own. First of all, I did say "it's our table, we can do what we want with the rules" But, let me clarify what I said, it IS often actually cheating - let's take a common reletively generic example. Armour: many rulesets offer advantages to plate armour (reduced damage taken), offset by disadvantages (encumberance rules). Many groups eschew the encumberance rules because it's a faff to work out, but don't reduce the advantage. Therefore the munchkin (and it's often the munchkin that suggests we don't use a rule) gets all the damage reduction advantages of plate mail, while still managing to keep up with the movement rate of the leather clad ranger. THAT'S cheating. Gina's example of the ranger never running out of arrows while the magic user has a strict limit on magic missile is another example. This is precisely my point. Designers tinker with their systems all the time, because they know then inside out, and have time to work out the impacts of what might seem like minor rules changes. Most of the rest of us don't have the time to get that familiar with the system. Case in point. A friend was thinking about which system he wanted to run a Western adventure in. In the end he decided upon Aces and Eights. I'd heard about it on this here podcast thought it sounded interesting. I got the players guide and was stoked. Here is a rich system with a great random character generation method (though one that's badly laid out maligning it a ton more complicated than it needs to be). I spent hours making my character and got more and more into the game. Then the GM said "I can't be arsed with the shot clock nonsense, here's my house rule for rolling to hit." It was a shit rule, because this friend had never GMed before, hell had only played a couple of years (the rest of us had played since we were at school, over thirty years ago), but even if he'd come up with a brilliant rule it still removed one of the charms of Aces and 8s BEFORE ANY OF US HAD GOT THE CHANCE TO GIVE THE RULES AS WRITTEN EVEN ONE TRY. We might as well have been playing Deadlands.
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Jan 2, 2015 12:00:43 GMT -8
On the final email: obviously there's a bunch of nuanced information missing here, which renders any advice moot but my take is this: most players are not having fun. Has anyone asked the psycho munchkin if he's having fun? JiBs advice was (I think) the best. Finish the game, accelerate the campaign to play one more session that gives everyone a reasonably satisfying story conclusion and call it quits. BUT then explain openly why the game has ended - it wasn't fun anymore. If this doesn't send the psycho munchkin (and did I hear "trained killer"?) into a rage, maybe push at that open door and explain more - that it was these behaviours (specific examples, not general wishy washy "you always ..." ) that made it not fun. Then everyone go off and reconnect with friends and family or whatever. Then when you all return to start another game (or the next phase of the campaign), without psycho munchkin, you can do so guilt free.
But this way, he also has a chance of understanding why you don't want to play with him. And maybe can change his behaviour for the next group.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jan 2, 2015 15:49:29 GMT -8
Except for the fact that each of those games (I'm actually unaware of any that don't include this) have a rule 0 of "If you don't like a system/rule, don't use it." So, no... It's not cheating. The expectation, by the designers, is that you will make the rules your own. First of all, I did say "it's our table, we can do what we want with the rules" But, let me clarify what I said, it IS often actually cheating - let's take a common reletively generic example. Armour: many rulesets offer advantages to plate armour (reduced damage taken), offset by disadvantages (encumberance rules). Many groups eschew the encumberance rules because it's a faff to work out, but don't reduce the advantage. Therefore the munchkin (and it's often the munchkin that suggests we don't use a rule) gets all the damage reduction advantages of plate mail, while still managing to keep up with the movement rate of the leather clad ranger. THAT'S cheating. Gina's example of the ranger never running out of arrows while the magic user has a strict limit on magic missile is another example. And again. So long as the entire group agrees with the house rule, no it's not. It's now a rule. You seem to be misunderstanding me. All of the designers that I know and have talked to all say that they know the rules to their own games less than the people who play them. All of them would tell you that you are every bit as qualified as they to tinker with the game.
|
|