|
Post by ironnikki on Mar 12, 2012 12:23:31 GMT -8
I agree with JiB here about crunch and fluff- they're incomparable. To me, the amount of crunch a system has is completely unrelated to how much fluff is supplied. Fluff is just another term for setting info, as far as I'm concerned.
I also believe that the presence or absence of both crunch does not necessarily have a bearing on how much role-playing will occur. A GM should select a system that supplies enough crunch to satisfy the players, while not allowing it to go over his or her head. In other words, if a GM wants to use a crunchy system, he or she had better know what they're doing with it, or it will become an impediment instead of an asset to the goal: telling a riveting story.
Fluff is completely different, in that there is a requisite amount of fluff that must be present for a good story to be told. Whether that fluff is provided by the system or the collective imagination of the players and GM is dependent on both the system and group, but there must be enough fluff to encase the plot and provide some wiggle room when things go awry. The exception here is, of course, the sandbox game, which is nothing but fluff, and in no way a bad thing.
I don't see crunch as a bad thing, but I tend to avoid really crunchy systems, because I know that I'll need to spend a lot of time getting used to the system before it stops impeding gameplay. Heck, I started playing SW about 6 months or so ago (yet another HJ convert, you bastards,) and I STILL haven't figured out all of the rules! Granted, I'm slower than most when it comes to these things, but I take that into account when I'm choosing a system.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 29, 2012 7:51:49 GMT -8
Looking forward to finally getting these and playing them on repeat for my non-gamer girlfriend! Let's see, when's our next road trip...
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 24, 2012 14:11:06 GMT -8
Yeah, I'd totally be down for some discussion once I make my way through them!
That's unfortunate about the HG books. The first one practically had me glued to my e-reader, which, by the way, makes it very difficult to ride a bike. I guess at least the likelihood of me being flattened will decrease with the next couple books.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 24, 2012 7:58:33 GMT -8
I've only read the first one, but I've got the other two queued up after I finish A Clash of Kings. I caved in and bought Tales of the Far West yesterday anyway, haha.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 24, 2012 7:25:51 GMT -8
That sounds pretty cool, hyvemynd. I'm sure that things would have worked out differently if that game wasn't played "real time." I'm not sure that I would enjoy a game that was totally and completely real time, but having little bits of it where we all know ahead of time what's going on makes for great roleplaying. After all, it's a lot easier to react as your character and act on his or her instincts if you don't have an extra 5-10 minutes to think about it!
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 23, 2012 13:52:54 GMT -8
Ah, the benefits of having a Kindle! I'll pick this up after I finish the Hunger Games books. Thanks for the suggestion!
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 23, 2012 13:49:10 GMT -8
Yeah, I don't play his games anymore, haha. That was not the last douchey move that he pulled, and unfortunately, it was the only one that actually had good intentions.
Anyway, point being, if something that dickish can effect a good change in players, there's a really good chance that a sincere attempt at making someone a better player will succeed as well.
|
|
|
GMPC's
Feb 23, 2012 9:08:04 GMT -8
Post by ironnikki on Feb 23, 2012 9:08:04 GMT -8
When I was playing a long-running DnD 3.5 and a nWoD game while in college, our GM always had a persistent GMPC who was mostly just there to save our asses if and when we got into trouble. After a couple of encounters, though, these characters started fleshing out a bit, and developed relationships with the other PC's. We never really felt like they were detracting from our experience in game; on the contrary, they seemed to enrich our game.
At this point, it appears that in my group of friends, I'm the only competent GM. I'm not trying to be egotistical, but everyone else who has run a game does not take time to prepare before the game actually starts, holds grudges against players for both IG and OOG actions, can't or won't agree to a regular play schedule, or other issues that typically cause their games to dissolve in less than a month. I love GMing, but I'm starting to miss the persistent roleplaying that players get. As yet, I haven't used a GMPC because I don't want the players starting to think that I'm biasing the game by playing on both sides of the screen. In fact, it's very possible that I would end up doing that, albeit subconsciously.
What's everyone's take on a persistent GMPC joining the group? Would you rather have a GMPC who doesn't participate in combats or skill checks, but contributes to roleplay, or would it be better to specifically design a GMPC to fill a hole in the group? I haven't yet checked with my players, but I don't think that they wouldn't have a problem either way.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 23, 2012 8:51:23 GMT -8
A few years ago, I played in a very informal group where we would just get together one day a week and whoever felt like running a game at that point would GM. It was always DnD 3.5, because we just didn't have or know anything else, and we always flew by the seat of our pants, but we all seemed to enjoy it for the most part. One of the biggest problems we had, though, was time management and handling distractions well.
One time, one of the guys who was pretty new to RPG's said that he had an idea for a game, and that he thought it would take a few weeks to play through it. He had never GMed before, and he wanted to give it a shot. We all agreed, and the story began with all of us being approached by a stranger in a bar with "an offer that we couldn't refuse." He gave some minimal details about what he was proposing, and we began talking it over. Old habits died hard, and we all started getting distracted and making jokes, and 15 minutes later, we came to a conclusion. When we told the GM our decision, he goes "Oh, him? He left like 10 minutes ago. Guess you should have figured it out sooner." We were kinda pissed, but he had made a pretty good point, and after that game, I've been determined to keep the story moving whether I'm GMing or not.
This is kind of different from what you've proposed, hyvemynd, but in my case, forcing players to improve can work. If he's agreed to the idea, that at least indicates that he's interested in improving. If I were in his shoes, I'd be down for some 'training.'
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 22, 2012 14:06:48 GMT -8
I had intended on using Joegun's rules in the last game that I ran, but my players decided to run in fear instead of fighting (admittedly the best idea, considering one of them spent the last 20 minutes of the game filling out a new character sheet...)
I like your idea too, JiB, but I prefer to assign numbers to potential victims and roll an appropriate die. This is particularly appropriate for my situation, since my PC's are using fully- or semi-automatic weapons, so the hit box could be larger than just one square away. I do have one character that likes to throw knives, though, so I think that the splash rules might be useful for him.
Thanks to everyone who replied!
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 22, 2012 13:47:41 GMT -8
Ah, frig, I forgot to tune in! Is this a recurring thing?
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 17, 2012 12:05:03 GMT -8
I was going to post this in the thread concerning JiB's comments on ranged attacks vs. parry, but I didn't want to derail the thread.
I feel like the Innocent Bystander rules are a little too forgiving for my tastes. As a newbie to SW, the only penalty that ranged attackers get as far as firing into melee is that if they roll a 1, they could potentially hit an innocent bystander. JoeGun mentioned in the other thread that he always enacts this rule.
Unless I'm mistaken, this doesn't scale at all with increasing number of allied combatants, i.e: the system treats the situation as though you're just as likely to hit a friend if its 1v1 or 2v1. Are there any house rules out there to change this, or have I missed something in the rules? I was thinking about arguing that your allies provide some cover for the defending enemy, or increasing the roll for innocent bystanders depending on how many people you're trying to avoid hitting (if two allies are in melee with a single enemy, a roll of 1 or 2 hits an innocent bystander,) but I think that that could spiral out of control very easily.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 17, 2012 11:52:59 GMT -8
Everyone has a bad night sometimes. It's entirely possible that the next session will go swimmingly, so don't lose hope yet!
The way I see it, if nobody else wants to step up and run a game, you get to decide what you want to do. Obviously, you want to provide a fun experience for your players, but you probably have a good idea about how they're feeling. I'm always hesitant to stop a campaign early, but sometimes, there's really just not a better option. See how they're feeling, and go from there. It could be that this is a learning experience, and the rest of the campaign goes swimmingly. If the players aren't feeling it, reach a good stopping point, hit the pause button, and jump into FATE (or another game of your choosing.)
Ultimately, so long as the group is having fun, you're doing it right. One bad game shouldn't completely change your group's feeling about the campaign, but if you'd rather be playing something else, do so.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 16, 2012 7:30:06 GMT -8
This is simultaneously the most beautiful and horrifying thing I've seen in a while (which, I assume, was the point!) Congratulations on such a successful and fun game! This kind of innovation is why I believe that RPG's will never die out; there's just too many of you creative people out there to let it get boring!
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 15, 2012 8:49:15 GMT -8
I've been running a PF game with a gunslinger who's currently at 10th level. I had never played with a gunslinger before, so we just played with the rules as written. He's been able to do very good damage, and has quite a bit of interesting utility as well. Echoing the others, give it a few tries with the current rules, and see how you guys feel about it. There's always time later for your PC to find an unusual gun later in the game that happens to bend the rules as you see fit.
|
|