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 Nov 18, 2015 3:41:34 GMT -8
...wall of text crits Tim! for 10,000,000 damage; Tim! dies. Life uses Dresden Files on Tim!. He is distracted. Tim! uses Rage on Life. It's not very effective... Life uses Wall of Text on Tim!. It's super effective! Tim! is knocked out. Would you like to use another Happy Jacks host? >Yes No I laughed so hard I cried at that one. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Nov 18, 2015 7:15:12 GMT -8
No no no no no [holds head in hands] it's like bad acid flashback . . . Aaron PS on holiday, ppm Internet can't afford to reply. But for fucks sake - really, really, this argument? Again?
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Nov 18, 2015 8:08:48 GMT -8
I don't think I'll ever get back those IQ points I just lost. Right!? And tell me that doesn't read the same as a number of posts in this thread. I dare you.
|
|
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 Nov 18, 2015 8:27:24 GMT -8
I am reminded of a text AI someone wrote and fed TimeCube to parse. It sounded like Friend Computer after that.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Nov 18, 2015 17:52:19 GMT -8
33 pages, 33! multiply by 20.18181818181818 and you get 666 . . . significant? I truly hope not Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Nov 18, 2015 18:01:40 GMT -8
I see the page for about 3sec then it turns white (autoclicks thru to a blank page?)? Aaron
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Nov 18, 2015 18:24:27 GMT -8
The Angry GM episode topic will NEVER get this big...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 21:52:54 GMT -8
Meh, I like Angry. He has written a lot of good things. He's also written a decent amount of garbage. I've given him shit over the garbage. Wish he'd stick to the good info and ditch the attitude. It's like hes the personification of the Apocalypse World book.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Nov 19, 2015 3:02:10 GMT -8
The Angry GM episode topic will NEVER get this big... Lol - no it won't, especially not after you've made this thread ALSO the Angry GM Thread now Well played sir, well played . . . huzzah 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 Nov 19, 2015 5:59:31 GMT -8
It's like hes the personification of the Apocalypse World book. Well THAT'S a load of horse shit right there. The Apocalypse World book is fucking good. Angry? Feh.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Nov 19, 2015 11:00:55 GMT -8
I just realized that every forum should have a Matters of System post. It is like a little electric zapping fly-magnetic, but for hate and anger. I feel like it keeps the rest of the board fairly clean.
I think that's why it keeps coming up every once in a while. You just need to do a little Spring (or Fall) cleaning every so often and get that shit out of your System. (DYSWIDT?)
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Nov 19, 2015 13:13:13 GMT -8
It's like hes the personification of the Apocalypse World book. Well THAT'S a load of horse shit right there. The Apocalypse World book is fucking good. Angry? Feh. This. You may not like the tone of AW, but every word in there serves a purpose. The words and tone build the world as you learn the rules. As opposed to words in stuff the "Guys, I'm so edgy, guys!" GM writes.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Nov 19, 2015 14:29:41 GMT -8
It's like hes the personification of the Apocalypse World book. Well THAT'S a load of horse shit right there. The Apocalypse World book is fucking good. Angry? Feh. No. The system is good. The book is not.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Nov 19, 2015 17:37:52 GMT -8
Long replies show your post is taken serious, so I hope you do not mind if my post is thorough. I have written it offline because, frankly, with an active toddler my thoughts cannot gather in one place for very long. I have edited it down from 6 pages to the core response. That Charisma score informs a percentage the GM knows about whether it is an opposed role or a simple check(, or even a fudge roll). I think the part you're missing is that the stat score reflects the in-game reality, which is what the GM is describing to you when you make a check, but which is also visible (to a degree) to everyone within the game world. Your character can look at itself, or at the giant, or at the ninja, and see the in-game reality which corresponds to their stats. In order to see the world from your character's perspective, you need to know what your character knows, which means you need to know the rules of the game (unless your character is stupid, a baby, and/or drunk - which might work as a gimmick for a one-shot, but is going to get old eventually). It is not that I am missing the part ‘that the stat score reflects the in-game reality’ because this is not actually what I listen to you say when you write the GM describes stat blocks for players to understand in-game reality. I hear the stat blocks are the reality and not a mere reflection of the in-game reality; that stat blocks determine in-game reality. I hear the in-game reality is predicated upon stat blocks: story is founded on a pile of crunch. I am hearing “ stop talking to my XP” and, ultimately, I hear a story about adversarial gaming, which RPGs were not meant to be. To make myself clear on terminology: in-game conflict and tension is not the same as adversarial gaming. Adversarial gaming is a zero sum game: a winner +1 and a loser -1. Conflict – martial, intellectual or philosophical – is part of the fun of RPGs but it progresses the game along in a manner that every player wins – including the GM, thus not zero sum. Players improve and so do the characters who “level up.” Adversarial gaming pits one stat block of roughly the same value against another stat block, like the sport of boxing, or the game of chess. We can identify adversarial gaming by the term ‘game balance.’ I do not think this is a controversial statement; I think it is obvious. I wish to call attention to the difference between in-game conflict and adversarial sport at the table just so my meaning is clear. I am saying the stat block responds to the game’s story world (origin point GM, not rulebook). The GM can bestow a malus or bonus due to circumstance or to situation that makes even a dump stat formidable, even including but not limited to fudging the dice. Examples for clarity: I can take the origin point of my (**CENSORED**) argument allowing the GM to run a game in a high fantasy story setting using Harn as his or her “soup base.” Will it be goulash or Irish stew, or a curry or a bigos dish the GM is making? The answer is up to the GM (with the players’ trust & consent in a social contract that implies a lot more leeway than tweaking a broken RAW because whatever it is, Harn is its base.
Players coming from a tradition of “Harn as curry” might not notice much difference if they were served a spicy goulash instead but Irish stew might not meet the expectations they bring to the table of HARN stat blocks no matter how good the dish. These expectations of stat blocks determining in-game reality come from a traditional board/war gaming mentality.
Although players with that mentality may enjoy the new flavour, they will gripe it is not Harn and suggest other games, same as one differentiates alternate board games. **CENSORED** means players need to pay more attention to the cook than to the recipe book. The system is flavoured to the GM’s taste, its part of the payoff and it is only one version. It sets individual GM’s apart, keeping them ‘one DM equal to another.’
Jazz music is a good instrument to express the same idea again. Music lovers will have their favourite versions of the same song. Take The Song of Harn, for example, and listen to it in fusion Jazz. Likely its arrangement in that style sounds nothing like the version by the Paul Whiteman Orchestra. The tune might not even be apparent to the ear. It may sound like a different song, especially in the jazz format, though it is introduced as The Song of Harn. I am saying the GM conducts this song/music and refer to Gary Gygax’s analogy referencing games traditionally played using the star communications network * style (i.e. games with a GM) and that the Song you hear will depend upon the conductor not the sheet music. Just look at the photos of the conductors representing the alternative jazz styles for a visual!
*Summarized from concepts developed by Alex Bavelas, "Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups," pp. 503–11; Harold Guetzkow, "Differentiation of Roles in Task-Oriented Groups," pp. 512–26, in Cartwright and Zander, Group Dynamics; H.J. Leavitt, "Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on Group Performance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology vol.
Is it Harn System when its melody is no longer distinguishable from every other version? The Jazz example says yes. How about the player using the fictional character with the low ability score? Is there no room for his or her solo? Is that player supposed to sit quietly at the table to empathize with the shame of his or her fictional character? (And is it really the GM’s role to make each special snowflake shine instead of that being the role of each player?)
When my solo comes up in-game, I play. It does not matter how desperate the situation/stat block is. In fact, I play because the situation/stat block is dire. That, to me, is ‘epic.’ It does not get old but improves the more I play with the group, like cooking. **CENSORED** reflects a nontransferable group experience. To know what your character knows you need only to ask the GM same as you would if you wanted clarification of a menu item. I do not expect the same dish, using the same ingredients, to taste the same in every restaurant from greasy spoon to Michelin star, do you?
Early on in RPGs, the advice was to start everyone at level one and work up as a group. This worked the advantage of creating group cohesion but it also allowed the GM leeway to cook. Maybe players should have a discussion with their potential GM about his or her influences rather than simply approach the GM as host of a board game? It does not require knowing the rules. If a player rolls well (whatever that means in whatever system), his or her character can work a weapon regardless of the proficiency listed on the character sheet, for that one roll. [Weapon or skill, I just choose a combat what if.] He does not need to be a master. He could be quite inept. The necessary roll to succeed might even be a critical. The GM can directly say as much with description in-game. Of course, the next time the situation comes up, the player may recall a rule but the GM still sets the scene in-game same as in the first instance regardless. Role-playing is the act of thinking like your character, and making decisions from that perspective. A character with Charisma 7 thinks and acts differently from a character with Charisma 1 or Charisma 105, just as a character with Mind 45 thinks and acts differently from a character with Mind 22, and you cannot even attempt to play those characteristics unless you know what those numbers mean. It's not simply that the smarter character has a better chance of completing a smarts-based task (although that is also true). The smarter character will approach a problem from a different perspective, and come up with different ideas about how to solve the problem. The same is true of a character with a different charisma score, or different character traits, or background affiliations, or whatever. Everything on the character sheet is part of the story that tells us who a character is, and if you aren't fluent in the system, then you can't even try to accurately portray that character. The statistic is relative to the story though, isn’t it? It isn’t just a static block of numbers like a shoe or a hat working its way around a Monopoly board, unaffected no matter how many times it passes GO! Take a fictional character with an intelligence just above animal level, something ultra rare in my experience for a dump stat. This fictional character is conscious of his life; may hold a simple philosophy; watch Fox News; be able to fill out a form to own a gun; and chew gum and walk at the same time. Now take the player’s frame of reference for his or her character’s block of stats from debating with Noam Chomsky and institutionalize the fictional character. The frame has shifted. The perception of the stat has/should be shifted. Give the character the Ring of All Knowing, and the same paradigm shift happens. Have the character attack a bunch of dumb Orcs, the same shift occurs. Have the card sharp fold, and the frame shifts again except this time the GM has set up the player’s character with an adventure hook. Story can do all that; it can trump a fictional character's stat block if not an actual player's block to play. In terms of approaching the role-play of character, I think it is impossible to get into the head of someone more intelligent than oneself. I only have my experience to go on admittedly. So let me surmise. I can play someone dumber than me but, even then, this is my assessment (conception) of, e.g. “3 out of 18,” dumb. Another player on this forum [interpreting their fictional character] with the same stat as my fictional character may have an entirely different, even drastic, approach to play that same stat. The stat may inform that player to constantly endanger his fictional character as well as the other players’ fictional characters, while yet another player might play the stat as the fictional character of Forest Gump using wisdom. Authors have expressed a similar problem, I have read, when they state that all their fictional characters live inside their head. It’s one head. Maybe not only am I not the person to address this comment, but it is irrelevant to the **CENSORED** debate. Frankly I stay away from this type of play altogether when I play a fictional character because, no matter what I try to play as, I am ultimately playing a facet of me anyway. If I play a racist, or a princess, or the intellectually handicapped, I must play something impossible to separate from my own experience of it. I suffer from enough hubris as it is already without adding to it by pretending to be an omniscient totally objective being.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2015 2:40:18 GMT -8
TLDR for Cowboys post: he is traditional acting to your method acting (in his mind). His way of doing it is better (in his mind), and your kind suck (in his mind).
P.S. How dare you be different from him!? He doesn't like people not like him who play different. *Insert terradactyl screach here*
|
|