Author Topic: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...  (Read 36300 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #120 on: November 06, 2008, 08:50:17 PM »
D&D tried horror element rules. They are... underwhelming.

Cthulu tries horror elements. They aren't really any better. Sanity checks? Tell that to some of the poor sods in Iraq.... Honestly a mechanism trying to force the character into a genre is just poor. Either the horror will work at the table, or it won't. Now if every player could decide for HIMSELF when to roll a sanity check, THAT's a mechanism that would represent the quality of the gameplay.

I DO have a basic issue with needing rules and mechanics for everything: You need rules and mechanics for stuff where you want to direct a certain AND/OR a random outcome on a situation.
 
Take character flaws: You might roll on your Avarice flaw when you wish to determine whether you character can spare tuppence for the begger or not. Or Greed to decide whether the character will betray his friends for money. But FORCING those checks just means you are taking control of the character away from the player, and forcing him to play in a certain way. That, IMHO, is a bad mechanism. As is shaping a character around his flaws, instead of shaping the flaws around the character. Still, these kinds of rolls can enhance the roleplaying experience if the players are willing to run with them, as long as they remain organic and flexible.

Some mechanics behave contrarily to that, by forcing players to have their characters act in certain ways. These mechanics are bad, IMHO, because they do not enhance play, they limit it. They also probably won't feel like they organically integrate into the gameworld, rather, they might attempt to force the gameworld into a certain direction. Like the sanity checks. Face it, tentacled monsters (or whatever) will never be truly horrific, unless you MAKE them horrific, as a GM. If you do, then that's your horror. A botched sanity check won't make me stop laughing at the critter if its just ridiculous.

I recently provoked the GM who started running Cthulu for us by setting up my character as a classical shoot-em-up hero. I rolled good stats, took mostly combat skills, got a fat gun and had him set up nicely as a 20s prohibition gangster. Instead of doing stupid rituals and exorcisms, he just wanted to burn down the house with the monster. When that wouldn't work (due to... well... rain) he just talked, completely in character, about blowing it up with dynamite. At that point the GM just basically packed up in a huff, because "Cthulu just doesn't work that way, and you CAN'T run about talking about blowing shit up and shooting stuff." Hell, it does, if you want it to. The character just can't KNOW that the monster isn't hurt by either fire nor dynamite. The GM however then wanted us to then reroll characters who basically couldn't have any combat capabilities, nor own any weapons.

So I agree with Josh that a game that purports to be certain genre, but doesn't have a mechanism for its main schtick is probably a poor game - or at least it won't work as what it tries to be. However, a poor mechanism is no better than none at all, and quite possibly that much more frustrating to handle. You can still do most things without rules and have fun, you probably won't have fun doing them with bad rules.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #121 on: November 07, 2008, 12:14:19 AM »
D&D tried horror element rules. They are... underwhelming.
<snip>
So I agree with Josh that a game that purports to be certain genre, but doesn't have a mechanism for its main schtick is probably a poor game - or at least it won't work as what it tries to be. However, a poor mechanism is no better than none at all, and quite possibly that much more frustrating to handle. You can still do most things without rules and have fun, you probably won't have fun doing them with bad rules.

Are you familiar with Burning Wheel, Dread or Shock?  The mechanics they use to establish an emotional tone better than games like DnD.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #122 on: November 07, 2008, 12:30:44 AM »
Trimmed for relevancy.

Stay on topic.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #123 on: November 07, 2008, 12:43:22 AM »
Are you familiar with Burning Wheel, Dread or Shock?  The mechanics they use to establish an emotional tone better than games like DnD.

Dread uses Jenga, so it's got that going for it.

Burning Wheel's writing makes me want to claw my eyes out. I should probably try it sometime with Luke running it, so I can experience the full-on evangelism up front and personal.

Shock has no GM and kind of requires everybody at the table not to be a dick while they're throwing crap at you. I think it's more of a story game than a roleplaying game, personally, but YMMV.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

jcm

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • I am information man
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #124 on: November 07, 2008, 12:50:32 AM »
Burning Wheel's writing makes me want to claw my eyes out.

The endless charts and rules scare me each time I look at Burning Wheel. I know people say it's no more complicated than D&D, just different, but I don't really buy that - it sure seems a lot more complicated.

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #125 on: November 07, 2008, 01:01:49 AM »
In case anybody is wondering what a story game is: http://www.story-games.com/codex/index.php?title=If_You%27ve_Played_Tabletop_RPGs

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Talen Lee

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Forum Ninja
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #126 on: November 07, 2008, 01:47:52 AM »
Burning Wheel's writing makes me want to claw my eyes out.

The endless charts and rules scare me each time I look at Burning Wheel. I know people say it's no more complicated than D&D, just different, but I don't really buy that - it sure seems a lot more complicated.
People who point at D&D's level of layered sophistication and call it 'complicated' don't really appreciate clever design. D&D is a mastery based system with tiers upon tiers of flowing information. You could have a game that had an equal amount of information to digest and it could easily be arranged in such a way as to be less easily digested and approached. Most games are.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #127 on: November 07, 2008, 05:43:28 AM »
Are you familiar with Burning Wheel, Dread or Shock?  The mechanics they use to establish an emotional tone better than games like DnD.
Burning Wheel's writing makes me want to claw my eyes out. I should probably try it sometime with Luke running it, so I can experience the full-on evangelism up front and personal.


You mean layout.  The writing itself is fantastic.  It is actually written to be read, unlike most roleplaying books.  Actually it is the only well written RPG book I know written in an adult style. 

The endless charts and rules scare me each time I look at Burning Wheel. I know people say it's no more complicated than D&D, just different, but I don't really buy that - it sure seems a lot more complicated.
It is about as complicated as DnD but does significantly more. 

Again, the key is that the book is well written.  So you just read it and it tells you what to do.

Also, don't skip over the stories in the character burner, they are actually well written.  That has to be a first.

People who point at D&D's level of layered sophistication and call it 'complicated' don't really appreciate clever design. D&D is a mastery based system with tiers upon tiers of flowing information. You could have a game that had an equal amount of information to digest and it could easily be arranged in such a way as to be less easily digested and approached. Most games are.
Burning wheel is better designed as a game to accomplish its own goals then DnD. 
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

jcm

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • I am information man
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #128 on: November 07, 2008, 06:48:35 AM »
Actually it is the only well written RPG book I know written in an adult style.

As opposed to that saccharine and condescending White Wolf style or the wackyfun chummy tone that almost every other game book is written in?

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #129 on: November 07, 2008, 07:41:01 AM »
Actually it is the only well written RPG book I know written in an adult style.

As opposed to that saccharine and condescending White Wolf style or the wackyfun chummy tone that almost every other game book is written in?

As an aside to the White Wolf bashing, I have to say I like Exalted. It's not an emo-game like the rest (at least you don't feel coerced to play it like one). I haven't looked in any of the books, lately, nor ever actually played it for more than a few sessions, so I couldn't really compare it to other systems. I do like the principal setup, though, and (with my limited information) I don't think it's intrinsically flawed. I like the stunt system, and I think it's sorely missing in many other games.

Talen Lee

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Forum Ninja
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #130 on: November 07, 2008, 08:50:02 AM »
I like Exalted.
Me too.

And I don't know Burning Wheel from a clean sock. I'm just lauding one thing D&D does that it does well that it typically gets no credit for because people think all tables are created equally.

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #131 on: November 07, 2008, 11:05:43 AM »
You mean layout.  The writing itself is fantastic.  It is actually written to be read, unlike most roleplaying books.  Actually it is the only well written RPG book I know written in an adult style.

No, I mean the writing. The layout doesn't help, but the writing annoys the crap out of me.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #132 on: November 07, 2008, 01:41:27 PM »
Actually it is the only well written RPG book I know written in an adult style.

As opposed to that saccharine and condescending White Wolf style or the wackyfun chummy tone that almost every other game book is written in?

Chummy is a good term.  Yes precisely. 

to clarify it is well written and and "adult."  There are other books that are either.  I think in adult vs young adult because of Meg.

I still have not read Exalted so I cannot comment on it.

No, I mean the writing. The layout doesn't help, but the writing annoys the crap out of me.



What would you say is wrong with the writing then?  I can tell you what is right with it after.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #133 on: November 07, 2008, 04:33:11 PM »
I find Luke's authorial writing style to be somewhat preachy, as if he's actively trying to convince me that his game is superior to any other game I've played before, and that my life will change when I start playing it. That sort of thing rubs me the wrong way. I've noticed that BW makes claims about empowering its players and turning most of the story telling to them, but I'm not sure that's the case. It rather seems like a heavy-handed traditional game with some story game elements, and truthfully I'm not as ready to abandon my trad gaming up to that. I like epic storylines and characters can interact with and explore, whether it's a sandbox approach or a general story arc, and so I'd rather a game support that more fully than turn things on its ear.

This gets back to the issue I have with "you could be having more fun," too. There are types of games people really like to play, and that suit their purposes. You could run excellent games of BSG with SHOCK, for instance, but it wouldn't be the same kind of game, nor the same sort of experience. I might like that as a one-shot parlor game experience like Baron Munchausen, but for a long-term campaign I'm much more comfortable with Cortex and games like it that are more trad.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Shaun

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • I found my pants.
    • This Modern Death
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #134 on: November 07, 2008, 04:59:47 PM »
I've noticed that BW makes claims about empowering its players and turning most of the story telling to them, but I'm not sure that's the case.
It is, indeed, the case.

It rather seems like a heavy-handed traditional game with some story game elements
It's not heavy-handed at all.

I like epic storylines and characters can interact with and explore, whether it's a sandbox approach or a general story arc, and so I'd rather a game support that more fully than turn things on its ear.
BW does this quite well.
This Modern Death - An RPG Podcast
Raptus Regaliter - My Blog

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #135 on: November 07, 2008, 05:03:10 PM »
It is, indeed, the case.

It's not heavy-handed at all.

BW does this quite well.

Okay. I'll rephrase. I'm not sure it does these things for me and the folks I game with. I'm sure it does those for you and yours. :)

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Talen Lee

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Forum Ninja
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #136 on: November 07, 2008, 05:07:31 PM »
Shaun, would you mind actually backing that up with something more than single sentences? I don't have BW to sit down and double check what you've said, and you're not actually making a point as much as just disagreeing.

Shaun

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • I found my pants.
    • This Modern Death
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #137 on: November 07, 2008, 06:46:42 PM »
Sure.

All of the things that Cam mentioned are explicitly addressed in the rules. Player empowerment is there in the Beliefs, Instincts and Traits systems. The game assumes a proactive group of players, and the rules are designed around that. Also, it's explicitly against the rules for the GM to rob a player of success if the dice come up in their favor, thus preventing railroading as much as possible. Since railroading is the GM's plot taking precedence over the players' desires, preventing that is empowering the players.

If by heavy-handed, Cam meant that the rules forced players to do certain things, it's not really true, at least not any more than any other RPG. I fail to see the difference between losing in a Duel of Wits and losing in a battle. Except that losing in the battle pretty much means that you're dead, and the game doesn't really move forward for you with that character. If, on the other hand, he meant that the rules were too complicated, I'd disagree on the grounds that there are really only 2 rules that you need to learn - how the dice mechanic works, and how scripting works. Everything else is a permutation of those. In my experience, a player who's never read the book will have functional knowledge of the system within 3 sessions. And by functional, I mean savvy enough to game the system for advancement.

Then there was the implication that BW doesn't support epic stories, which isn't at all the case. It just doesn't support the GM deciding unilaterally what the epic story is.

Finally, there is the, "It doesn't work for me," argument, which I think is a copout. You might not like the game, but that doesn't change the fact that the game works as promised. On top of that, it works as promised without need for houserules.

I'm starting to think that the title of the thread is misleading. It should be, why, if you want a particular mode of play, are you playing a game that doesn't actually support it?

Edited to change HTML tags to BBCode
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 07:13:24 PM by Shaun »
This Modern Death - An RPG Podcast
Raptus Regaliter - My Blog

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #138 on: November 07, 2008, 07:04:39 PM »
Finally, there is the, "It doesn't work <i>for me</i>," argument, which I think is a copout. You might not like the game, but that doesn't change the fact that the game works as promised. On top of that, it works as promised without need for houserules.

I'm starting to think that the title of the thread is misleading. It should be, why, if you want a particular mode of play, are you playing a game that doesn't actually support it?

There is definitely a need to approach this from another angle, I agree.

"This doesn't work for me" isn't a cop-out when the thesis is "you could be having more fun." If it isn't working for me, I'm not having more fun. I'll choose something else.

"If you want a particular mode of play, are you playing a game that doesn't support it" is a better thesis. It's questioning, it asks the individual to assess his particular preferences, interests, and point of view, and then asks them to see if the game they're playing now meets those criteria. It's possible there are games that meet those criteria better, in which case, they could be worth a look.

As it stands, I think the current thesis is a turn-off. I think Shaun's angle on it is an improvement, and might engender less weighted discussion.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...
« Reply #139 on: November 07, 2008, 10:57:43 PM »
I find Luke's authorial writing style to be somewhat preachy, as if he's actively trying to convince me that his game is superior to any other game I've played before, and that my life will change when I start playing it. That sort of thing rubs me the wrong way. I've noticed that BW makes claims about empowering its players and turning most of the story telling to them, but I'm not sure that's the case. It rather seems like a heavy-handed traditional game with some story game elements, and truthfully I'm not as ready to abandon my trad gaming up to that. I like epic storylines and characters can interact with and explore, whether it's a sandbox approach or a general story arc, and so I'd rather a game support that more fully than turn things on its ear.
What Shaun said.  And it is called confidence when you are right.  Luke is confident in his writing.

Now "traditional" is a word I hate.  Do you mean traditional in the sense of Action Adventure /Skills'n'fightin game or is the sense of "all GM framing" with "characters played internally?"

Quote
This gets back to the issue I have with "you could be having more fun," too. There are types of games people really like to play, and that suit their purposes. You could run excellent games of BSG with SHOCK, for instance, but it wouldn't be the same kind of game, nor the same sort of experience. I might like that as a one-shot parlor game experience like Baron Munchausen, but for a long-term campaign I'm much more comfortable with Cortex and games like it that are more trad.


If you wanted to play a social science fiction game you could use SHOCK and play BSG, but you could not use d20 or cortex because they are not social science fiction games (they are AA/S'n'F). 

The TV show BSG is a social science fiction show, so the way to emulate that would be to use a Social Science fiction game.  d20 or cortex can never replicate that (you can pretend to or use it as a framing device but not play). 

You can also play BSG as an AA game.  And you can use cortex, but why would you?  There are better AA games.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009