Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 8:50:19 GMT -8
I would hate the automated straightjacket this game would play out to me, RAW. Again, if Stu were to run the game in a genre I wanted to play, I would definitely give it a try. That's not because he is a famous podcaster and beer connoisseur but because in the exchanges I have had with him he seems to be a GM/person that would offer me a fun game experience regardless of RAW game system he implements, and we would fit together at the table - perhaps these two points are one and the same: we would both have fun playing together. By describing the game, within the context of system matters, you are privileging the argument that there is, by fact of what you consider this to be superior RAW system mechanic, a wrong way to play RPGs. Essentially, it appears, Apocalypse World is a better system for role-playing and D&D does not compare favorably or even at all – whereas the system (removed from the GM = System equation as its definition) is not important is the argument that informs “there is no wrong way to play an RPG.” (The appearance for an edition wars debate is evident in your comparison, whether or not that is your actual intention, which I believe it is not.) Hold on a moment, I never said it was better. I said I preferred it. Let's not get caught up on minutia here. This whole discussion is about, "Does system matter?" right? If playing Apocalypse World would be something you hated because of the way it affects role playing. That sounds like the system matters to me. And having played both, I can assure you they do not have the same feel, even with the same players at the table. The system cannot determine the amount of emotional investment a player puts into a character. It cannot determine it, but a system can help sway it. Let's use a comparison example again. First game we'll use is 3:16. Admittedly, I haven't played this. From what I've heard, however, PCs can have very short lifespans. Even to the point of accidentally killing each other fairly often. The rules for replacing those characters is very quick as well. Sure, there's more to the system, but it's famous for being the game where you roll, not to see if you hit, but how many enemies you kill. And there's Dread. At the start of the game, you're handed a questionnaire. It contain a number of leading questions, like, "What day-to-day task do you loath?" or "What trick do you use to make strangers comfortable around you?" As a result, you come into the game with a character whom you have thought about in terms of who they are. You generally know a bit about their strengths and weaknesses. I'm not going to say if one is better - I haven't even played 3:16 as I said. But they both want a different level of player investment, and try to get it. No, the cannot force it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 22, 2012 9:37:10 GMT -8
Just to clarify, GURPS has it's basic system rules and side bars and sections with optional rules and advanced rules that GMs can add at their discretion.
So when I'm referring to GURPS being a deadly system, I'm referring to the standard, non-optional, non-advanced rules set. For examble, rules where a PC has 10 hp and a sniper rifle does 8d6 damage.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 22, 2012 10:14:51 GMT -8
Again though everyone is assuming that the way they RP is right or canon and that it's universal - game designers are also guilty of this. The whole RP experience depends on the group sans system . . . If the group goes RAW and agrees to the tropes of a setting then in that case the illusion of the system determining flavour/outcome exists . . . But only because the group agrees in advance to these caveats. If the group house rules or free forms or deviates from RAW another system emerges as a property of the group interaction. Do laws determine social conduct and behaviour . . . No, they determine consequences but society continues whether or not . . . People frequently refuse to follow those laws and they get punished or get away with it . . . If society and it's laws diverge too much then new laws get written. That's not say this happens without conflict but laws don't make us behave we consent to abide by them . . . And despite rumours to the contrary we are humans frequently refuse to do that (civil wars, revolutions, civil rights movements etc etc etc). RP is what it is . . . The system evolves out of what your particular group wants not the other way around. More to the point there can be several groups agreeing to abide by a system RAW and I'll bet they differ in their actual table top play . . . Because RAW still requires interpretation. We're arguing about subjective experiences as if they were objective facts . . . That was the point of my referencing Plato's Cave of Shadows . . . Your experience differs from mine and that simple fact becomes the axiom of my argument. If all our experiences within a system RAW were the same then system would matter . . . Since subjectivity changes each persons experience system does not matter as much as the group dynamic. D20 or GURPS may produce certain types of games only because we bring these suppositions to the table and agree to abide by them in a certain way as we understand it. How do you measure combat heavy? One two three combats per session? Who decides to combat or not to combat? Sandbox or Story? The implementation of the rules when and how? It can be summed up in those classic interview questions behind or in front of the screen? Fudge or roll with it? etc. these determine flavour, more than the system on its own - CC describes certain approaches as like a straight jacket to himself, yet others express a preference that they choose to adopt this style as their understanding of RAW. I'm sure CC could take that game and adjudicate it in such a way as to circumvent the perceived straight jacket and I'm sure that such a system would eventual emerge by default from players using a more free form game who like that sort of structure. The gaming community is small but hugely varied. A quick trip thru other forums will demonstrate just how differently different people interpret and implement the RP experience . . . Yet they buy the same books, read the same words and claim equally authoritative interpretations of RAW.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 22, 2012 10:20:03 GMT -8
I would hate the automated straightjacket this game would play out to me, RAW. Again, if Stu were to run the game in a genre I wanted to play, I would definitely give it a try. That's not because he is a famous podcaster and beer connoisseur but because in the exchanges I have had with him he seems to be a GM/person that would offer me a fun game experience regardless of RAW game system he implements, and we would fit together at the table - perhaps these two points are one and the same: we would both have fun playing together. By describing the game, within the context of system matters, you are privileging the argument that there is, by fact of what you consider this to be superior RAW system mechanic, a wrong way to play RPGs. Essentially, it appears, Apocalypse World is a better system for role-playing and D&D does not compare favorably or even at all – whereas the system (removed from the GM = System equation as its definition) is not important is the argument that informs “there is no wrong way to play an RPG.” (The appearance for an edition wars debate is evident in your comparison, whether or not that is your actual intention, which I believe it is not.) Hold on a moment, I never said it was better. I said I preferred it. Let's not get caught up on minutia here. Fair enough. This whole discussion is about, "Does system matter?" right? If playing Apocalypse World would be something you hated because of the way it affects role playing. That sounds like the system matters to me. If Stu were to run the game for me, I would have a different reaction as I wrote. I would not hesitate to play if he mentioned the game is Apocalypse World. Now, if he were to say, we would play Cthulhu, I would not be interested even if he said he would run it in my “system” (I call game) of choice. I am just not interested in a depressing game no matter what the mechanic. Then again, if Stu were to say Cthulhu does not have to be played like that…. I think you see what I mean? Stu might say this is down to “merely” his administration of how overt the behaviour modification mechanic in Apocalypse World would be and how he might house rule t his system for feel. I do not get the sense he would feel bound to any system from a book – recalling that he was creating his personal game system of StU-RPS until he found a convenient verisimilitude in GURPS. (Maybe he even modifies GURPS a little … I do not know.) And the point of all that is the GM = system. So far, I have defined GM = system in the positive. But there are some douche bags with whom I would not play and the GM = system definition works that way too. RPGs, as I have argued, are wholly unique games in that the system cannot be separated from the players and the GM role. Players are conjoined to the system (now I mean system) of play, and the game runs poorly, to say the least, when the players are not so bound. This cannot be a “system” experience standardized on a page – something WotC has sidled towards. If the system of any other type of game were so violated, the game would collapse on itself. In RPGs, such a system violation can actually enliven or (in the case of douche bags) deaden the experience: creating lifelong fans or hardened critics . This is why RPG designers are (should be) at the top of their game, evolution so-to-speak, and why the traditional term “system” just does not seamlessly translate to RPGs design. Successful game companies like Guidon Games and Avalon Hill both rejected Dungeons and Dragons because it was outside their industry paradigm. RPGs were and still are revolutionary games. Now, I will toss out a question: If GM is not the system, why /should/ a good GM consult with players throughout the game by either listening to players in game or engaging players after the game? I mean, if the system matters? And if a system is not defined as something inviolate, through so many exceptions to the system and system still retaining its definition, then it is time to wonder just what is a system because, to me, the term has lost its meaning. And having played both, I can assure you they do not have the same feel, even with the same players at the table. Without question. And if the GM mixed up the “systems” (what I call mechanics), you would find a playable game with a third feel to it. And that would be playable IF the GM’s players agreed to play test it. There is no wrong way to play RPGs unlike any other game. THAT is its inviolate system not THAC0, or bennies or D6 or whatever. Those are mechanics
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 22, 2012 10:25:15 GMT -8
I'd just like to add iPhones are absolutely crap for constructing coherent paragraphs or editing on the fly. So I apologise for my lapses in grammar . . . It's not intentional
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 22, 2012 10:29:32 GMT -8
If all our experiences within a system RAW were the same then system would matter A fucking hour I spent writing my post and you sum me up in a few words. Damn I suck at writing! Although, I am looking at a top down paradigm of the same thing you're saying. The gaming community is small but hugely varied. A quick trip thru other forums will demonstrate just how differently different people interpret and implement the RP experience . . . Yet they buy the same books, read the same words and claim equally authoritative interpretations of RAW. And podcasts! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 22, 2012 12:13:34 GMT -8
If all our experiences within a system RAW were the same then system would matter A fucking hour I spent writing my post and you sum me up in a few words. Damn I suck at writing! Although, I am looking at a top down paradigm of the same thing you're saying. LOL sorry Just to clarify, and reveal myself for non-RPG criticism, I'm actually describing the same-thing but from within a paradigm informed by a wholehearted embracing of phenomenology. Yep I'm one of 'those' psychologists - a phenomenologist. The process I'm describing therefore is neither 'up' nor 'down' but the bit in the middle - the bit that occurs between all participants. Phenomenology is based in the observations of existential philosophy . . . Where, for example, consciousness exists as the process of awareness (and awareness of awareness) and it cannot exist in isolation . . . Consciousness becomes an emergent property of the interaction between the observer and the object that the observer is observing (positing or positional awareness/consciousness). For a better explanation I'd refer anyone interested to Sarte 'Being and Nothingness' ('being' is 'awareness' and the 'nothingness' is in the fact that the 'being' has no tangible substance, yet it exists) In RPG terms the 'system', the 'game' and the RP experience emerges from the interaction of all participants sat at the gaming table. A good visual analogy would be to picture the group sat around the table with a fantastical reality emerging from the ether between them all - just like those old adverts in ancient copies of Dragon magazine. That emergent world exists yet it doesn't (yeah we could go all Copenhagen school of indeterminacy here but I'll leave that for another day) . . . it's existence, such that it is, is entirely conditional on the collaboration and interaction of all the participants. Remove player or GM and the whole collapses into nothingness again . . .
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Aug 22, 2012 12:50:08 GMT -8
Just to clarify, GURPS has it's basic system rules and side bars and sections with optional rules and advanced rules that GMs can add at their discretion. So when I'm referring to GURPS being a deadly system, I'm referring to the standard, non-optional, non-advanced rules set. For examble, rules where a PC has 10 hp and a sniper rifle does 8d6 damage. I kind of figured that was the case. But I think you're selling GURPS short by insisting on only considering the "vanilla" rules. The customization options are part of what makes up the entire game; they're not any less GURPS than the 8d6-sniper-rifle rules are.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 22, 2012 13:10:37 GMT -8
LOL sorry You're sorry?! I have to make a career as a novelist with my only inspiration a table full of munchkins rolling D20s and plagiarizing characters from Wheel of Time or Disc World at my gaming table, and you're sorry? Brother, I am sorry. And my mood won't improve when it comes time to edit and revise whatever monster the length of my posts here portend. :evilSardonicLaughter:
|
|
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 Aug 22, 2012 17:21:16 GMT -8
Yeah... I'm going to opt out of this discussion. My arguments aren't going to change anyone's mind, and none of the opposing arguments I've read in this thread have changed mine. This is an immobile object meeting an irresistible force kind of thing for me now. I believe that: - a "system" is the collection of rules, mechanics, and guidelines found in the document being used to run a game;
- the GM is the adjudicator/interpreter of the aforementioned system, but is not the system itself;
- modification of the system by a player, including the GM, does not change either of the above points;
- the resolution of character actions and events are flavored by the specific system being used, creating a specific, though not necessarily unique, tone/feel for games played using that system.
For me, that last one is the most important. The system you play in has an effect on how actions/events are resolved in game, meaning identical stories told using different systems will feel different. System matters.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Aug 22, 2012 18:38:26 GMT -8
I'm opting out of this discussion too simply because when people started asking "what do we mean by 'system'" it just got too esoteric from the whole "you are going to react differently in combat based on what system you are playing in depending on what system you are using" which is really the level of conversation I was having.
Have fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 19:39:52 GMT -8
HyveMynd, Ericfromnj, you both beat me to it. I should have known better than to even get started on this, really.
Yeah, if people can't agree to what words mean, things aren't going anywhere.
If anyone's up for Dogs in the Vineyard, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 22, 2012 21:53:18 GMT -8
And if we go right back to the start of the thread I think I did say that something about the argument being prone to no resolution. When I said mistaking subjective experience for objective observation that's the heart of it. All I would hope is that the participants begin to appreciate that their experience of RP and system is unique to them and their group . . . too often within the gaming community there is an assumption of the one true way . . . It's this that makes tabletop so very different from computer RPG's and it's the one true advantage the hobby has but fails to exploit because so many people in it believe that their experience is canon (the savagery of the edition wars is a prime example of this)
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 22, 2012 22:13:11 GMT -8
To sum up my contention: system only matters if it matters to you. The best example is Tappy in full on crunch monkey mode - regardless of the system he will set about attempting to create a character that will break it, it doesn't matter if the setting is noir, fantasy, etc the final experience of that exercise is the same . . . A breaky rapey character . . . But it only happens because Tappy chooses to embark on that journey as an intellectual exercise. A munchkin will be a munchkin regardless of the system and a munchkins experience will always be thru the lens of munchkinism because s/he will be looking for the same thing in any game they play (nb: Tappy is not a munchkin, his system breaking merely highlights where a munchkin would see an opportunity).
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Aug 22, 2012 22:14:13 GMT -8
Noooooo....it deals more with the fact that really the debate becomes completely pointless when we start debating what the words "system" mean then there is no common ground to even debate with, though if you want to think I just believe there is only one true way and call me closed minded instead, by all means have fun thinking that.
Everyone's experience is unique, and you can use every system for anything, but the system affects how people play a game. I bet both Stu and I running GURPs (unmodified core rules since I seem to have to clarify every little thing I say) would have differences based on the fact that we are 2 different GMs. I bet if we each ran it for 2 different groups, there would be differences because there are different players. I bet if we ran Savage Worlds instead there would be differences purely based out of the fact that THE SYSTEM MOTHERFUCKING MATTERS.
I really wasn't going to post anymore but kaingaru that whole assumption of the one true way just really rubbed me the wrong way and to put it in FATE made me tag you with the aspect of ELITIST GIT, which may not be fair, I don't know, but that's how I see it, and I am a Douche enough to come out and say it.
Hell, I am from New Jersey. We actually sell shirts that say "Welcome to New Jersey, Where the Weak are Killed and Eaten." I think we feed them to our governor....I know he wants to kill and eat the Jersey Shore cast because they are all actually New Yorkers...shit I babble at 2am...damn vodka
|
|