|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 30, 2013 8:06:47 GMT -8
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Mar 30, 2013 8:49:26 GMT -8
It has occurred on several occasions that some sneaky (or maybe not...) citizen of the UK has ended an email to the show with one of my favorite Britishisims (don't try looking it up). That being See You Next Tuesday. I'm not sure the hosts ever picked up on it.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Mar 30, 2013 21:30:01 GMT -8
I, at least, did. We actually discovered it (at least in our part of the world) after the John Landis "see you next wednesday" thing he used to put in music videos and movies.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 31, 2013 7:05:31 GMT -8
Being born in New Zealand there was a time when my mother found the Australian use of this vernacular offensive ref: "objectification of the female gender" . . . this lasted right up to the point when I called her, using her own logic, for using her favorite profanities repeatedly ie: dick,dickhead, prick, cock, knob and (by favourite) cockbreath. She now, like the naturalised Australian she is, free interchanges all profanities of either gender to suit the occassion. There was an odd moment, sharing my youth between Oz and NZ, where an odd cultural glitch was evident. Shit isn't offensive in Oz but bloody is and vice versa in NZ . . . so I'd go to NZ and no one would bat an eyelid if I said "bloody hell" unless I followed it with ". . . that's shit", I'd get back home to Oz and no one would react if I said "shit it all" unless I followed with a rejoinder like " . . . I'm bloody well fed up now". In the UK the prize for the most consistent, colourful and repetitive use of 'C U Next Tuesday' has to go to your standard issue London cockney - as exemplified by the character Bricktop in Snatch. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Mar 31, 2013 15:11:52 GMT -8
"What do you get when you turn a Douche-bag of Holding inside out?" Ba dum tssshhh! ;D
|
|
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 Mar 31, 2013 18:27:30 GMT -8
Sorry I missed being in the chatroom for this one. I would have loved to bad mouth Bennies. On the other hand, perhaps it's lucky I wasn't there, because the chatroom window would've been filled with a flood of ALL CAPS text shouting. I haven't finished the episode yet, but I just wanted to comment on something. Around the 57 minute mark, the hosts respond to kainguru's question about the players/characters affecting the story without Bennies. The hosts say that of course the PCs should affect the story at all time because they are the protagonists. But they go on to say that it's nice to be rewarded (i.e. given a Bennie) for doing something hard and/or dangerous. There's a humorous bit about "Take that hill? When we'll get nothing out of it? Screw that, let's go to the next town over." I was kind of bothered by this. If this is happening in your game and this is your player's mentality, I'm going to say you're a lousy GM. If your players need mechanical rewards (i.e. Bennies) for getting involved in the story, then you've crafted a shit story. Unless you're running a one-off, you should always, always craft the story around the PCs, not try to shoehorn them into a pre-existing plot you've created beforehand. If you're a player and you're doing this, then you're a lousy player. It's your job to care about the things you said your character cares about. If, for example, you say your PC is completely devoted to their family, I'm going to expect you to go rescue a family member if they're put in danger without me dangling a Bennie in front of your nose. If you go "Yeah, but I'm not getting a Bennie for it" and go do something else? Fuck you. Either change your character sheet right now to represent the callous bastard your PC actually is, or go play somewhere else. Bottom line. The reward for PCs doing things in game should not be mechanical; they should be fictional. It's the player's job to play their character as if they were a real person. And it's the GM's job to portray the world as being real, so that the player's actions matter. Mechanical bonuses are nice, but should be secondary.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Mar 31, 2013 18:46:00 GMT -8
Sorry I missed being in the chatroom for this one. I would have loved to bad mouth Bennies. On the other hand, perhaps it's lucky I wasn't there, because the chatroom window would've been filled with a flood of ALL CAPS text shouting. I haven't finished the episode yet, but I just wanted to comment on something. Around the 57 minute mark, the hosts respond to kainguru's question about the players/characters affecting the story without Bennies. The hosts say that of course the PCs should affect the story at all time because they are the protagonists. But they go on to say that it's nice to be rewarded (i.e. given a Bennie) for doing something hard and/or dangerous. There's a humorous bit about "Take that hill? When we'll get nothing out of it? Screw that, let's go to the next town over." I was kind of bothered by this. If this is happening in your game and this is your player's mentality, I'm going to say you're a lousy GM. If your players need mechanical rewards (i.e. Bennies) for getting involved in the story, then you've crafted a shit story. Unless you're running a one-off, you should always, always craft the story around the PCs, not try to shoehorn them into a pre-existing plot you've created beforehand. If you're a player and you're doing this, then you're a lousy player. It's your job to care about the things you said your character cares about. If, for example, you say your PC is completely devoted to their family, I'm going to expect you to go rescue a family member if they're put in danger without me dangling a Bennie in front of your nose. If you go "Yeah, but I'm not getting a Bennie for it" and go do something else? Fuck you. Either change your character sheet right now to represent the callous bastard your PC actually is, or go play somewhere else. Bottom line. The reward for PCs doing things in game should not be mechanical; they should be fictional. It's the player's job to play their character as if they were a real person. And it's the GM's job to portray the world as being real, so that the player's actions matter. Mechanical bonuses are nice, but should be secondary. In a perfect world I would agree with you. However sometimes you end up with a regular player in your group that only cares about blowing shit up. And if they are not blowing shit up then they are playing on their phone. To them an Rpg is a video game on a table. This is not the way I play and it is not the way I like other players to play. However sometimes you don't have a lot of choice beyond abandoning your friends. They are terrible players. However I have personally seen my worst hack n' slashers become more engaged with better roleplaying because of Bennies. Suddenly the quiet ones speak up a little more. As far as the thought of Bennies stoping players from thinking tactically, not everyone is a tactician and rpgs don't have to be war games where the best tactician wins. It is less realistic, but I'm okay with that I have plenty of realism in my life.
|
|
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 Mar 31, 2013 19:18:41 GMT -8
All right, I'm indulging in the cardinal sin of double posting, but I heard smokeymoonshine's question and the discussion it generated.
Yes, certain games are focusing more on collaborative setting/story creation. Sometimes that happens in the first session of the game, other times it counts as like a "pre-session". Again, I keep wanting to run the HJ's hosts through an Apocalypse World-based game as the first session in an AW-based game is setting building through play. As Stu said, the GM does give up some control of the setting. Instead of building the setting alone before the game, the GM now has to do it on the fly during the session. It's the ultimate "yes, and...".
I'm hoping that we find a way to submit listener APs, because (not to stroke my own cock here), all three of the Dungeon World games I ran show this off really well. In setting up those games, all I did was come up with the premise and a number of fiction generating questions. It was my job to incorporate the player's answers into the game, regardless of what it was.
For example, I've run my "Tower of the Ice Witch" scenario three times now, and each time it's been completely different. One of the questions I ask is "How did the original Whitespire Knights defeat the Ice Witch?" Once I was told they defeated her with a piece of the sun. Awesome. I wonder how the Knights did that. Let's hope your characters figure it out, and defeat the Ice Witch again. Another time I was told the knights cast the Ice Witch into an eternal flame, trapping her. Again, awesome. Now, somewhere in the tower is an eternal flame that wasn't there before.
It's not my job to tell the players they're wrong, to cock block them, or to play gotcha. "Ah ha! You didn't solve the puzzle exactly the way I think it should be, so now you're fucked!" That is so lame. It's more fun for everyone at the table to have input into the story and the setting.
Plus, it ties into the post I made above. If players have input into the setting and story, you're guaranteeing that the players will be interested in your game.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Mar 31, 2013 20:34:37 GMT -8
I disagree /w Hyvemynd.
If you're setting up a crossroad in the story that's putting a character in moral dilemma between two beliefs/morals, the GM shouldn't know whether the character will accept the hook or move on, otherwise, it's not a dilemma.
Additionally, I disagree that someone who forgoes a hook because that is consistent with character concept is a bad role player.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Mar 31, 2013 21:22:57 GMT -8
In regard to newer games and prep, it's been a bit of a mixed blessing for me. When I've tried to run games that have the players involved in the actual building of the world, I've had trouble getting players to speak up. Heck, sometimes I can't even get them to pick a setting / idea. I hear "we'll play whatever you run", which is flattering, but a bit frustrating when you want to be sure you're giving the audience what they want. Am I the only one that gets this?
|
|
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 Mar 31, 2013 22:09:32 GMT -8
Stu, I think there's a big difference beween a moral dilemma and a plot hook. Maybe I didn't present my case clearly, but I was speaking specifically about plot hooks. If a character cares about two different things equally, and the GM sets up a situation where they have to choose one over the other, I totally agree. The GM shouldn't know what the player will have their character do. If the GM can say with certainty that "Player X will do Y" then it's not really a moral dilemma.
However, if a player says their character cares about something, then completely ignores that thing for no reason, that's not a moral dilemma. It's just the player not playing their character.
Example Shitty Player: I'm a LG Paladin who's sworn to protect the weak and defenseless, and to show mercy to my foes. Now let's coup de grace that mother fucker! DM: Uhn, why? Shitty Player: Because I want to. That's why!
Good Player: I'm a LG Paladin who's sworn to protect the weak and defenseless, and to show mercy to my foes. Now let's coup de grace that mother fucker! DM: Uhn, why? Good Player: I know this will put me in bad standing with my order because it breaks my oath, but killing this guy now will prevent a lot more pain and suffering later.
I'm not arguing that character must always be played the same way, so that people can predict a character's actions. I believe that players should play their characters as if they were real people, and real people change their minds all the time. All I'm saying is that a good player will make decisions for their character based more on the fiction than on mechanics.
As malifer said though, this isn't a perfect world. There are players who just want to roll dice and watch stuff blow up. Sometimes you can encourage those people to come ou of their shells and start seeing the game as more than just a pen & paper analogue of a video game. Sometimes you can't, and have to adjust. When the choice becomes playing in a style you don't really care for or not playing at all, then sometimes you just have to bite the bullet.
In the Monsterhearts game I'm writing the AP for here in the forums, one of the players is a fairly casual hack and slasher. After the third session last month, he went to the GM and said he didn't know what to do with his character. He's waiting for the rails to appear so he can go chugging down the pre-planned story path the GM has prepared for him.
Except there isn't going to be one. The whole style of that game is simply the GM reacting to what the players do; tossing wrenches, and making our choices matter. From my perspective, I can see all kinds of great things that his character has already gotten himself involved in, and would have a field day. But the player isn't used to being proactive, and is starting to complain that nothing's happening.
So, yes. Bennies can be used as a reward for those kinds of players to get them to step up. But after a certain point I feel like they're not needed.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Apr 1, 2013 3:43:06 GMT -8
Last night I started reading Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1st Edition.
I got a copy off ebay a long time ago and it was one of the games I was interested in as a kid, but never played.
In coincidence after listening to the podcast I pull this gem off the shelf to finally give it a look.
Fate points are a mechanic that save your character from death, to represent your not an average person. You roll at character creation to see how many you get and all they do is prevent death.
1986 not quite a bennie but the earliest mechanic I know of that is bennie like, a proto-bennie.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 1, 2013 8:50:20 GMT -8
Victory Games: James Bond 007 RPG had hero points that the players could use to change an outcome, re-roll a die or introduce a much needed deus ex machina to solve a problem/save the characters neck. They reasoned that this allowed a feel similar to the movies where James Bond get out of trouble thru dint of good fortune and random chance. Aaron
|
|
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 Apr 1, 2013 10:36:16 GMT -8
I am also sad I missed being in the chatroom for this episode but I had a VERY long day ahead of me on Saturday running multiple things for International Tabletop Day. I'll be back this week though!
As for Bennies/Void Points/Artha/Fate Chips, etc... I think they work really well if the system works well with them and people don't use them to do completely douchey things. You guys pretty much nailed how I feel about them.
Oh and Stork? Stop. Don't ever do that impression of Charles Nelson Reilly ever again. Ever. Just let it go man. Just. Let. It. Go.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Apr 1, 2013 10:54:14 GMT -8
Absolutely Malifer! We played Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (WFRP) when it first came out and it was such a deadly system (they wanted to make a fantasy call of Cthulhu) the fate points were an essential component. It was also the first game I ever played featuring an exploding die mechanic...I'm a huge fan and hopefully will get some happy jacker takers on playing a game or two online.
|
|