|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 2, 2015 23:43:34 GMT -8
The early days of Dragon and WhiteDwarf magazines were built on precisely that premise - anyone can have a good idea: sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 3, 2015 5:52:49 GMT -8
I might also add that many 'amateur' tinkerers have taken the likes of video games well beyond the expectations and experience of the initial designers - often with better results and better game play. It's interesting to note that some notable games, that have become industry 'standards', from the past started life as online community hacks of another designers engine. Some contemporary amateur hacks, of interest to the likes of this community, around at the moment are 'The One Ring' total conversion of 'Medieval Total War 2' (orcs, magic and balrogs) and the 'Circle of Eight' hack pack for the old Atari TOEE game (opens up areas the designers originally closed before release, fixed many bugs and expanded the game further into it's original TTRPG origins: NB: Atari basically handed over the patching and updating of this game to the Co8 amateurs very early on . . . because they did such a good job with their first few hacks) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jan 3, 2015 6:21:11 GMT -8
**CENSORED** means the players are not hassled with this. The GM is. That’s the system. That’s the every table is different idea. If the GM cannot be arsed to count gains of salt into pillow cases, or if the GM’s logic is unlimited arrows and limited spells is how the system works, that is fine. There needs to be a basis of trust in tabletop RPGs for them to exist.
And munchkins and optimizers cannot play that **CENSORED** game. They will be radicalized and even openly militant against such a concept. I am reading a lot of munchkin in the comments. Munchkins want to standardize the game to win it.
Yes, it is a game. The character can “win” by living or die by trying, and then the player creates a new, randomized, character to animate/play another game – like poker and random poker hands. It is not intended to be a regimented game like chess, right and wrong from a standardized manual or rulebook. It’s supposed to be about the group. (I find the concept of standardization appallingly repugnant in tabletop RPGs; a concept befitting of computer programming, which ultimately lowers the self-esteem of tabletop players who may feel inadequate to challenge the rules of the professionals.) Optimization comes from player agency, and the parity between intellects with whom you chose to play. It means, in **CENSORED** terms, cracking the GM - not beating the GM or being an adversarial system, which is the understanding a munchkin attitude will immediately bring to the table.
A **CENSORED** means answering this question: Is the GM’s personal logic informing the system fit the common sense of the group (and, secondly, is the GM’s personal logic too far from yours)? In the case of Conflicted in the Carolinas, the munchkin does not fit.
If he is a wacko, he may never fit. Stay away from him/her. Let the GM, i.e. the system, mesh with the group and the group mesh with the GM. If there is incompatibility, let it be just that. Let us drop the talk about assholes unless we are really talking about assholes.
|
|
|
Post by HourEleven on Jan 3, 2015 22:28:45 GMT -8
I have to say I agree with you, CC. A lot of the rules presented in a game only exist to prevent shitty players from playing shitty. It's like the warning on the snow blower that says you should wear shoes when using it and not to snow blow your roof (actually in the manual). Same as all the rules I don't enforce in my classroom until shitty students make me.
Now that I think about it (and in light of my post about the Missclicks show), the problem goes both ways. Those same rules give the players some form of defense against shitty GMs.
At the end of the day, the answer is always "don't be a piece of shit." And now I'm going to finish this "one beer too many" and go the crap to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Jan 4, 2015 17:33:40 GMT -8
Hey Stork when a dealer in a poker game says that fives are wild isn't that a house rule?
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jan 28, 2015 23:36:18 GMT -8
Way late to the party here, but I've just started catching up on missed episodes. I'm a "system matters" kind of guy. Dropping or modifying rules means you are no longer playing a particular game as the author intended. When whatever system you're playing was being written, the creator(s) had ideas of what they wanted the game to be about, and created the system's rules to reinforce that idea. Modifying a system's rules means you're no longer playing as intended. Which is fine. No one says you have to play the game as intended, and perhaps modifying the rules will make the game more enjoyable for your group. Edit: True Blood is pretty much vampire softcore porn all the way through the run. The same goes for Spartacus. Both are awesome shows, and not only because of the frequent, gratuitous nudity either. Additional Edit: Fuck Numenera even harder than Savage Worlds.Another Additional Edit: OK stork. You redeemed yourself a bit with that "be a fan of the players' characters" line. That's one of the core principles in Powered by the Apocalypse games.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Jan 29, 2015 16:38:49 GMT -8
Another Additional Edit: OK stork. You redeemed yourself a bit with that "be a fan of the players' characters" line. That's one of the core principles in Powered by the Apocalypse games. Whoa! He didn't even use the word "redacted" once... someone's feeling empowered!
|
|
Muddyboots
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 83
Preferred Game Systems: Callofsavagetoon 5ERPS
Currently Playing: Pla-Ying, wazzat?!?
|
Post by Muddyboots on Jan 29, 2015 16:56:45 GMT -8
Jan 29, 2015 2:36:18 GMT -5 hyvemynd said:
I'm a "system matters" kind of guy. Dropping or modifying rules means you are no longer playing a particular game as the author intended. When whatever system you're playing was being written, the creator(s) had ideas of what they wanted the game to be about, and created the system's rules to reinforce that idea. Modifying a system's rules means you're no longer playing as intended.
How do you reconcile that with the several systems that offer alternative rules, methods for modifying rules, and a clear statement in cannon to change whatever you want?
Granted, I learned to play in the late 70's and house rules were pretty much required to play at all. The assumption was that you were supposed to make up or change what you wanted to or needed. Modern systems may be better designed in most respects, but a guarantee we had just as much fun with 0E D&D. We didn't know it was a problem and assumed that part of the job of running a game was being a game designer.
Muddyboots
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jan 29, 2015 17:59:51 GMT -8
How do you reconcile that with the several systems that offer alternative rules, methods for modifying rules, and a clear statement in cannon to change whatever you want? Easy Muddyboots. Alternate rules are just that; alternate. The creators thought those alternate rules were cool enough to include, but for whatever reason, aren't part of the main rules. The same goes for rules modifications. Creators are fooling themselves if they think people will only ever play their game as written. So some systems include advice or examples on how to change the rules. A good example of this is 13th Age. The game was written by two people who, at certain points, disagreed on how things should be handled. There are sidebars in the book that present alternative ways of doing things, explain why one creator prefers doing things that way, and explains the impact it will have on the game. But 13th Age isn't GURPS. The book isn't presenting you with a toolbox of rules to pick and choose and assemble into something of your own creation. It's saying "Here are the main rules, which is how we expect you to play. But if you want to try these other things, knock yourself out."
|
|
Muddyboots
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 83
Preferred Game Systems: Callofsavagetoon 5ERPS
Currently Playing: Pla-Ying, wazzat?!?
|
Post by Muddyboots on Jan 30, 2015 0:09:33 GMT -8
To be clear, I'm not gunning for you, I'm enjoying the conversation.
you've covered two of the three exceptions I laid out. You didn't address systems where the designer doesn't give any clear guidance or commentary beyond "change things to suite your needs!" And actively encourages a GM to house rule. In that case if you play the system as is written, you aren't actually playing as is written unless you house rule things. Then in that case you are playing as written, because you're not.
Im not seeing any violation of Cardinal intent in house ruling. If you take it into the context of playing beyond a specific group, then you have issues of commonality. (I actually have a horror story to write up about that.) in my one experience, I chose to house rule things all the time. I make a point of being upfront with the players ahead of time and clearly writing out the modification. For example, I opened up my new 5E PHB, read a few pages and decided that I'm not using two races ( bet you can guess!) am I not playing as written because I choose not to use them, and the book says I can change things?
I'm still not convinced that a hard line definition is needed or even possible in any more than subjective judgement.
Muddyboots
|
|
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 30, 2015 3:58:23 GMT -8
For example, I opened up my new 5E PHB, read a few pages and decided that I'm not using two races ( bet you can guess!) am I not playing as written because I choose not to use them, and the book says I can change things? TL:DR it's not about rights or ability, it's about time. I'm pleased you two have breathed some life into this conversation. I can chew the fat on this 'till the cows come home. first, muddyboots - I think a distinction has to be made between "house rules" that fiddle with the mechanics of the game and "setting rules" that add (or in your example, subract) elements of the diagesis. But more broadly, my "anti house-rule" stance isn't hard and fast. It's more about my perception that most (but not all) house-rules are crap, and break the game. Of course people will point to plenty of house rules that eventually because established in official rulesets, and I willingly concede that the players can improve the game that designers have made. BUT for every brilliant house rule than got shared, and/or adopted by the games' publishers, I bet there are dozens that never left their house bacause they were shit rules than improved nothing. My old chum Kainguru talks about the importance of Hackers to the computer gaming community, but he sort of misses my point. I never said that designers are some sort of God-like race, who alone have the power to craft games, what I was saying is that they spend more time on the games than most of the rest of us. Hackers who have the time to code and debug mods etc, are like gamers who have the time to think through, and more importantly play through their house rules and understand all the impacts, and rewrite those that turn out to have unintended consequences. That community is an asset to us all. I'm not part of it any more, because I don't have that time, what with kids, work, study, chicken cleaning etc etc What really pisses me off is then a GM says (as in my earlier post re Aces and Eights) "I'm not using that mechanic, I've invented my own", the first time we've ever played the game. What happened then was the games was,,, meh, and we never played it again. Don't you think we should have given the rules as written a little time before coming up with a shitty house rule?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 30, 2015 8:26:08 GMT -8
For example, I opened up my new 5E PHB, read a few pages and decided that I'm not using two races ( bet you can guess!) am I not playing as written because I choose not to use them, and the book says I can change things? TL:DR it's not about rights or ability, it's about time. I'm pleased you two have breathed some life into this conversation. I can chew the fat on this 'till the cows come home. first, muddyboots - I think a distinction has to be made between "house rules" that fiddle with the mechanics of the game and "setting rules" that add (or in your example, subract) elements of the diagesis. But more broadly, my "anti house-rule" stance isn't hard and fast. It's more about my perception that most (but not all) house-rules are crap, and break the game. Of course people will point to plenty of house rules that eventually because established in official rulesets, and I willingly concede that the players can improve the game that designers have made. BUT for every brilliant house rule than got shared, and/or adopted by the games' publishers, I bet there are dozens that never left their house bacause they were shit rules than improved nothing. My old chum Kainguru talks about the importance of Hackers to the computer gaming community, but he sort of misses my point. I never said that designers are some sort of God-like race, who alone have the power to craft games, what I was saying is that they spend more time on the games than most of the rest of us. Hackers who have the time to code and debug mods etc, are like gamers who have the time to think through, and more importantly play through their house rules and understand all the impacts, and rewrite those that turn out to have unintended consequences. That community is an asset to us all. I'm not part of it any more, because I don't have that time, what with kids, work, study, chicken cleaning etc etc What really pisses me off is then a GM says (as in my earlier post re Aces and Eights) "I'm not using that mechanic, I've invented my own", the first time we've ever played the game. What happened then was the games was,,, meh, and we never played it again. Don't you think we should have given the rules as written a little time before coming up with a shitty house rule? I'd say you had a bad experience that's all . . . bit like buying a bad game that was badly designed. Remember Romero and American McGee and the rise and rise of ID Software: they could do no wrong, they were 'designer Gods' to many . . . then Romero strode off and went indie and his magnum opus? 'Daikatana'. For those to young to remember Daikatana was a woeful piece of FPS garbage, despite Romero having probably logged more PC Game Designing hours than most of us have had hot breakfasts. Designers do not have 'exclusive precedence' to having a 'good idea' - a 'good idea' can come from anywhere. A designer can make things crap just like a small town GM, and a small town GM can houserule an improvement just a viably as a designer. What went wrong with your game of 'Aces & Eight' was a bad ruling . . . the source is irrelevant. But you're right . . . the GM should have played the game RAW first then attempted to tweak it. Changing a fanbelt on car is easy, but you check the car for any unique steps first - because the changing fanbelts is not always exactly the same from car to car. How many times have people reviewed newer TRPG's but found issue a certain rule?, the testiment to this is that somany TRPG's are now in their umpteenth iteration . . . if designers always get it right why so many editions of so amny games as result of feedback and suggestions from players and GM's. Why did Wizards decide to tap this great collective think tank for 5th? - based on the positive player/GM response's to the game it seems to have worked for them . . . a lot better than their 'designer's only' 4th ed. 4th ed which, in the early days of the podcast, was constantly being tweaked by the hosts and the listeners of HJ - have we all fallen so far from where we started? Even Monster Hearts has gone into a second edition, so there must have been some room for improvement - suggested by who? some lonely guy sat at a server terminal in China (the one SJG get their ideas from) or the ordinary players and GM's: like us? Aaron
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jan 31, 2015 2:14:20 GMT -8
To be clear, I'm not gunning for you, I'm enjoying the conversation. you've covered two of the three exceptions I laid out. You didn't address systems where the designer doesn't give any clear guidance or commentary beyond "change things to suite your needs!" And actively encourages a GM to house rule. In that case if you play the system as is written, you aren't actually playing as is written unless you house rule things. Then in that case you are playing as written, because you're not. I know you're not gunning for me Muddyboots. We're cool. You're right that there are systems where the creators explicitly encourage players to tinker with the rules. But they've still provided a system, right? It's not as if you open up the rulebook, see a page that says "hey, just do whatever you want", and find the rest of the book is nothing but blank pages. There is still something there. No matter how much an author encourges the readers to modify the system, the system they've provided in the pages of that rulebook is the one they prefer to play. Otherwise they would have written something else. By putting words down on paper, publishing, and then distributing the book, the creator is saying "this is how I think you should play my game". The printed rules are essentially the system's intended use. I think almost all game creators realise players will drift, hack, and modify their game. Some of them just explicitly say doing so is OK and maybe provide some tools and advice on how to do so. Also, unless I'm mistaken Kainguru, it's Monster of the Week that just got a revised version. I haven't grabbed it yet, but from what I hear the new edition is more about Evil Hat taking over and distributing what used to be an indie game than anything about the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 31, 2015 2:52:15 GMT -8
Yes, I stand corrected - it is Monster of the Week. But I would argue that the author 'always publishes the system they prefer to play'. Most experience has shown that the authors tend to actually play bastardised versions of their own ruling sets . . . as noted by many reports of convention experiences where players get to play with a particular systems author. Was it not mentioned either on the podcast or here in the forums that the author of 'Burning Wheel', despite stating explicitly that his rulings are 'a finely tuned balance' and 'should never be tampered with', does not in fact play within his own ruling set - preferring numerous 'houserules'. Most games with variant/optional rulings are released in a certain form usually determined by marketing considerations and ease of playability for new players/GM's. Again DnD 5e is a good example . . . there is a beginners version and the full version and a stack of optional/variant rulings. I don't feel that I should have to play the vanilla version before tinkering, I know what I want and I know which variant rulings I intend to use and which rulings I will poet over from 1e/2e - because I'm not a beginner DnD player/GM, so this requirement is irrelevant to me. However, with Edge of Empire and Age of Rebellion . . . for me it's a new system, I'm going to go RAW until something breaks in-game and/or I feel comfortable enough with it to make the changes/use the options I feel are needed (if at all) . . . To clarify, my objection to attributing designers only with providence to change things is more to do with the dangers of Group Think rather than dismissing the idea of designers outright. Consider it as an expression of a fairly typical antipodean trait to desire to keep things in check and grounded by always questioning the authority of any authority - it has been labelled 'Tall Poppy Syndrome' (nb :The Aus/NZ understanding is less negative than other countries) and is an endemic feature Australian/New Zealand Culture, I prefer to refine it as a cultural imperative to 'keep the bastards honest' (ie: politicians/corporate leaders) and to 'remind them that no one indispensable as there is always someone bigger/smarter/more talented just around the corner' (ie: celebrities/academics/artists). It worries me when I hear sentiments that basically add several more levels to the ivory towers that we have built around the designers of the games we play . . . when our hobby is such a social one, by the very nature of it's playing, that I would like to believe that these designers themselves would not wish to be so isolated. More so we, as intelligent people, tend to vocally reject/dismiss/disdain the vapid yet popular idolatry of contemporary celebrity culture all the while being guilty of the very same - albeit within a much smaller subset of celebrities. Aaron BTW HyveMynd : double plus good your comment re: Numenera.
|
|