Author Topic: If I am already having fun, why should I change?  (Read 24483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #120 on: December 08, 2008, 05:49:38 PM »

I, for argument's sake, haven't found a vampire/gothic-horror game better than V:tM/V:tR... that may be because I haven't tried all permutations of the genre, but maybe I been around a bit and taken a read through/play through a bunch.  Its got the flavor I dig, no doubt; it makes a pretty penny (so the market has something to say about it, looks like); and it don't have problems that make a difference to the people back at the table...

Ummm....Ouch?  That hurt to read.  No offense, but the cutesy vernacular and the chummy nicknames are not my cup of tea.

In any case, like with most things the adjectives "good" and "bad" are only useful when you qualify them.  I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of ANY other games that do the Vampire/Gothic genre at all, much less better than the WoD iterations.  I can give you a 2 page rundown on what WoD is good/bad AT, and if you found that the negatives outweighed the positives then maybe it's worth your time to strip the system off of the genre and rebuild it.  Maybe it's not. 

Ultimately, the question is not "what games exist in the genre I want", the question is "what kind of play do I want, and will the game support it".  If you want a Simulationist experience where social position is emphasized, and you don't mind some clumsy mechanics, then WoD is just fine, no matter what anyone else tells you.  If you want a rough and tumble "vampires surviving in a world that hates them" kind of game, the system won't support you well and it's gonna get rough at points.

If you want to figure out whether something is more fun, you have to analyze what YOUR fun is, then put that information to good use.  And you have to include your fellow players in that analysis.

Quote
...can we call that a good game, then?  Or can we call anything "good" or "bad" without heavy, heavy, heavy editorialization?  I guess I wonder if there are some hard limits in this pillowy soft world we live in called "Gamin'".

I think we can call a game "good" or "bad".  There are metrics we can use to analyze games, and if the bulk of them are negative, then it's a bad game.  If the bulk of them are positive, then it's a good game.  You can have fun playing a bad game, but if you look at most of the examples you might come up with, you have fun by ignoring the parts you don't like.  At that point, you're playing a different game.
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #121 on: December 08, 2008, 06:24:16 PM »
Ummm....Ouch?  That hurt to read.  No offense, but the cutesy vernacular and the chummy nicknames are not my cup of tea.

None taken, Shog.  I don't get offended all that often.  Its a clear point, I'll roll it back a bit and we can meet in the middle on it for now?  Will that do?

Quote
In any case, like with most things the adjectives "good" and "bad" are only useful when you qualify them.  I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of ANY other games that do the Vampire/Gothic genre at all, much less better than the WoD iterations.  I can give you a 2 page rundown on what WoD is good/bad AT, and if you found that the negatives outweighed the positives then maybe it's worth your time to strip the system off of the genre and rebuild it.  Maybe it's not. 

Ultimately, the question is not "what games exist in the genre I want", the question is "what kind of play do I want, and will the game support it".  If you want a Simulationist experience where social position is emphasized, and you don't mind some clumsy mechanics, then WoD is just fine, no matter what anyone else tells you.  If you want a rough and tumble "vampires surviving in a world that hates them" kind of game, the system won't support you well and it's gonna get rough at points.

What is a Simulationist experience?

Quote
I think we can call a game "good" or "bad".  There are metrics we can use to analyze games, and if the bulk of them are negative, then it's a bad game.  If the bulk of them are positive, then it's a good game.  You can have fun playing a bad game, but if you look at most of the examples you might come up with, you have fun by ignoring the parts you don't like.  At that point, you're playing a different game.

What kind of metrics are there?
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #122 on: December 08, 2008, 06:50:12 PM »
None taken, Shog.  I don't get offended all that often.  Its a clear point, I'll roll it back a bit and we can meet in the middle on it for now?  Will that do?

No sweat.  I'm sensitive to condescension, and I probably see it where it doesn't exist.

Quote
What is a Simulationist experience?

Ha ha, look at me, using jargon that isn't obvious to everyone!  Sorry about that.

When I say simulationist, what I mean is play where you are trying to most simulate or embody the genre or world that you are playing in.  It's a term from GNS theory, which I've been bothering people with on this board for a few weeks now.   :D

In the context I used it in, I'm trying to say that the WoD was designed by and for people who wanted to strip off many of the "powergamey" elements that existed in most games at the time and focus solely on what it would be like to be a vampire/werewolf/whatever.  They made a REALLY good milieu in my opinion.  The game mechanics are pretty subpar by modern standards, but at the time they were groundbreaking.  The game is all about "being a vampire", hence simulating, hence Simulationist.

Did that help?

Quote
Quote
I think we can call a game "good" or "bad".  There are metrics we can use to analyze games, and if the bulk of them are negative, then it's a bad game.  If the bulk of them are positive, then it's a good game.  You can have fun playing a bad game, but if you look at most of the examples you might come up with, you have fun by ignoring the parts you don't like.  At that point, you're playing a different game.

What kind of metrics are there?

-  How concisely written are the rules?
-  How elegant is the rules set i.e. is it overly complicated for what it is trying to accomplish?
-  How complete is the rules set for the scope of the game i.e. how often do situations come up that cannot be resolved meaningfully with the mechanics?
-  How well does the player reward system reinforce the kind of play the game is designed to promote?
-  How compelling is the game milieu?
-  If there is fiction in the game book, does it support the game description?  Can you emulate those pieces of fiction in game?
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #123 on: December 08, 2008, 07:12:30 PM »
No sweat.  I'm sensitive to condescension, and I probably see it where it doesn't exist.

I'm from the Deep South, I talk like a cross between gentrified Southern gentleman and Matthew McConaughey when casual; and when going deep into my Philosophy/Logic/Forensics background, I sound like Kant writes.  Happy mediums between the two is a toughie, but not impossible. 

Basically, with the exception of extremes like "scooter"... you can best imagine me saying "hoss" with a politely sincerity.

Quote
Ha ha, look at me, using jargon that isn't obvious to everyone!  Sorry about that.

When I say simulationist, what I mean is play where you are trying to most simulate or embody the genre or world that you are playing in.  It's a term from GNS theory, which I've been bothering people with on this board for a few weeks now.   :D

In the context I used it in, I'm trying to say that the WoD was designed by and for people who wanted to strip off many of the "powergamey" elements that existed in most games at the time and focus solely on what it would be like to be a vampire/werewolf/whatever.  They made a REALLY good milieu in my opinion.  The game mechanics are pretty subpar by modern standards, but at the time they were groundbreaking.  The game is all about "being a vampire", hence simulating, hence Simulationist.

Did that help?

Mostly, not entirely.

The reason being, it seems like the term is relative (little "r", not big "R")--I won't understand the full implications of it without knowing what it is AND what it is not.  I'll have to see more of the theory its a component of to see what other things are categorized in the negative space (its a lot like being told "Pinklotogs are what you put things on in a home that have four legs", and needing to now if there are other terms for chairs, footstools, and nightstands... so I can be sure it means table). 

GNS.

Hmmm.

So, what other ways are there, if not Simulationist?

Quote
-  How concisely written are the rules?
-  How elegant is the rules set i.e. is it overly complicated for what it is trying to accomplish?
-  How complete is the rules set for the scope of the game i.e. how often do situations come up that cannot be resolved meaningfully with the mechanics?
-  How well does the player reward system reinforce the kind of play the game is designed to promote?
-  How compelling is the game milieu?
-  If there is fiction in the game book, does it support the game description?  Can you emulate those pieces of fiction in game?

Concise-ness, elegance, complete-ness, conditioning, fluff, correspondance... et al., then.

Those sound reasonable, some sound very hard to nail down in a value-intensive way, but I think no doubt, complete-ness and concise-ness is easy enough to judge.
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #124 on: December 08, 2008, 07:28:47 PM »

Mostly, not entirely.

The reason being, it seems like the term is relative (little "r", not big "R")--I won't understand the full implications of it without knowing what it is AND what it is not.  I'll have to see more of the theory its a component of to see what other things are categorized in the negative space (its a lot like being told "Pinklotogs are what you put things on in a home that have four legs", and needing to now if there are other terms for chairs, footstools, and nightstands... so I can be sure it means table). 

GNS.

Hmmm.

So, what other ways are there, if not Simulationist?

I've posted a bit about GNS over here: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2652.msg90679#msg90679

You'll find MUCH better and more lucid explanations at The Forge, where it was developed:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17828.0

In short, GNS stand for Gamism/Simulationism/Narrativism.  It's redundant to get too far into it here.


Quote
Concise-ness, elegance, complete-ness, conditioning, fluff, correspondance... et al., then.

Those sound reasonable, some sound very hard to nail down in a value-intensive way, but I think no doubt, complete-ness and concise-ness is easy enough to judge.

I agree that some of those metrics (and I'm sure other people could come up with more) are difficult to judge.  Some of it definitely comes down to taste, but it's like any art form - you may not like Picasso, but he's considered a master for a reason.  You may like Jim Davis, but he's not going to win any national awards for art.  These things CAN be judged.

I'll see if I can work up a good example after I get home from work.
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #125 on: December 08, 2008, 07:34:57 PM »
I've posted a bit about GNS over here: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2652.msg90679#msg90679

You'll find MUCH better and more lucid explanations at The Forge, where it was developed:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17828.0

In short, GNS stand for Gamism/Simulationism/Narrativism.  It's redundant to get too far into it here.

Fair enough.  Lemme take a look, then, before saying anything more.

Quote
I'll see if I can work up a good example after I get home from work.

Groovy.
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Wordman

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 70
    • Asteroid
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #126 on: December 08, 2008, 08:43:26 PM »
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 02:59:21 AM by Wordman »
Ctrl ]

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #127 on: December 08, 2008, 09:56:42 PM »
From your post it sounds like you've made the assumption that I enjoy the heavily mechanical aspects of gaming (tweaking/minmaxing/builds).  Ironically, I actually can't stand any of that. 

Oh I see. My bad. I did assume that. You make a good point, here, that sensitivity to 'system' doesn't necessarily lead to love of system for its own sake. Point taken.

Quote
Let me ask you a question Orion.  If you are playing a tweaky, mechanics heavy game like D&D 3.5, I presume you are "tuning out" the system parts and trying to enjoy the things you do like, such as social time with friends, evening play, getting to bullshit in character, whatever. 

To a degree yeah, but I do actually like some of the mechanical stuff. I like when I can make it replicate things I've seen in movies and read in comics. I like being able to re-live my hero fantasies. I'm not averse to mechanics. I just resent the attitude that if you're not optimising, then you're playing the game "wrong," which people do occasionally say.

Quote
What if I offer you all of those things but WITHOUT the tweaky crap, by switching over to a DIFFERENT SYSTEM that will allow your tweaky friends to feel special while beating up the bad guy, and gets out of your way so you can do the fun things you DO enjoy and maybe even supports the parts you like better with easy mechanics.  Would this topic then become more germane for you?

The topic is germane to me. That's why I'm here. :) But sure, I'm perfectly willing to look at secondary systems and see if they'd work for me. I doubt that I'd be able to find other players who are willing to invest time/money/effort into learning a whole new system, and one that is almost by definition unlikely to be as supported as D&D (which is sort of a sad statement, in itself). We're talking about inertia and convenience. I mean, do you use a DVORAK keyboard? It's apparently statistically faster, and we should have all switched to it decades ago. But we don't use it because it's massively inconvenient, considering that all software is built for it and we already know how to touch-type. That's the real explanation. We can get all judgemental about it and call it "laziness" or accuse people of being dumb, or we can just save ourselves the ulcers and let it go.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #128 on: December 10, 2008, 01:37:14 AM »
I think you sum up the thinking of someone who just isn't all that sensitive to mechanics, and isn't particularly interested in making an effort to be more so (rightly or wrongly), whereas Shoggoth sums up the opposite position. As someone sensitive to mechanics, he/she notices it and therefore it is a major part of his/her experience.

The most useful element of Wordman's post is the attention he pays to subjectivity. "Cost" and "benefit" are not going to be the same for any given two people, and in no small part that's because we all gain subtly different "benefits" from RPGs. A very story-oriented friend of mine is floundering in a game that seems mostly, for the others, to be an excuse to get together with friends and shoot the shit. I have less fun at very mechanics-oriented games (tactics/strategy/build). So if system is less important to me (and it's not as important as for many people on this board), then the benefit of changing systems is likely to be very low.

This actually leads us to another question: Is it possible for mechanics to be irrelevant?

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2944.0



Alright... so the system I like and have fun with (let's call that "Tina"), the system I don't know and haven't tried yet (let's call that "Amber"), and the system I know isn't good for my mojo ("Sherri").
« Last Edit: December 10, 2008, 01:49:10 AM by Josh »
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #129 on: December 10, 2008, 02:30:45 AM »
Heres the thing.  In a discussion analogy cannot be used to demonstrate anything, only explain the actual.  In this case, there are lots of reasons you might not like the instance of a game. 

Sort of... analogy (in a discussion or in any other way) demostrates the relationship between propositions.  That's just what an analogy is--a relational frame for ideas, used to demonstrate relationships.  It can explain the actual or the theoretical, it is not limited as you're putting it unless you're pulling a definition of analogy I'm not aware of... and I'm pretty familiar with the concept.

What are you calling analogy?

Quote

That isn't necessary to understanding relationships between ideas.  It can actually be counterproductive, especially if the "actual topics" have prejorative stuff going on.  Your recommendation wouldn't help much here, with that particular caution in mind. 

Quote
Also, don't try to analyze things.  Go with your experiences and feelings.  If you present your data and then your ideas about it then we can discuss how and why you concluded what you did.  If you simply present your final conclusion we can agree or disagree but we won't be able to explain to you where your observations would lead.

Analysis is beautiful and useful, and in an effort to clarify and understand things in a rational and objective manner, I think I'll pass on replacing it with subjectivity and "feelings".  I'll take my chances giving reasons and conclusions, and offering those for rational analysis from others.
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #130 on: December 10, 2008, 10:36:50 AM »
Quote
Analysis is beautiful and useful, and in an effort to clarify and understand things in a rational and objective manner, I think I'll pass on replacing it with subjectivity and "feelings".  I'll take my chances giving reasons and conclusions, and offering those for rational analysis from others.
So if that is your goal then why are you behaving rather like a lawyer or a politician (both in the worst sense of the meaning, in this context)? You want people to admit to a trivial point and then make some grand conclusion, and since we all admitted to the trivial case you can prove to yourself that you are logically correct. That's not the way reasoning works. Each logical step must be valid and relevant.

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #131 on: December 10, 2008, 04:25:31 PM »
I don't have as much faith as Flannel that it's possible to achieve objectivity, but I do think that abandoning analysis altogether and embracing just our feelings is several steps too far in the opposite direction. What we have to do (in my humble opinion) is learn to be analytical about our feelings and subjective experiences. To do that, we have to acknowledge that our own reactions simply aren't necessarily logical. In fact, they're mostly quite illogical, but that doesn't mean they're not explainable. "Fun" isn't particularly logical, for example, but we're here to try to talk about it in productive ways, to enhance each other's fun by comparing our experiences. That's all about subjectivity.

Now, taking an adversarial stance from the outset (the "everything is an argument" mentality) is not actually going to foster sharing. It's going to foster arguments and the misguided effort to "win" in discussions that often have no right/wrong factor (even pure mechanics arguments sometimes come down to "which interpretation of the rules do you prefer?"). Also, if there's no way to win logically in such discussions, people tend to fall back on winning rhetorically, which is a much nastier affair that has everything to do with domination and relatively little to do with saying something useful or helpful to anyone.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #132 on: December 10, 2008, 07:31:11 PM »
So if that is your goal then why are you behaving rather like a lawyer or a politician (both in the worst sense of the meaning, in this context)? You want people to admit to a trivial point and then make some grand conclusion, and since we all admitted to the trivial case you can prove to yourself that you are logically correct. That's not the way reasoning works. Each logical step must be valid and relevant.

I kinda always did want to be a lawyer, though. 

Past that, though, I want people to admit a point (its triviality or not isn't important to how I'm using it, you can consider it trivial though--I don't mind) and then open up discussion about the more gray-areas that come after it.  No particularly grand conclusion in mind (you might want to roll back the wild assumptions there, I'm not that good), and I've been clear about that from the outset. 

(and logical correctness isn't a consensus operation, sir; it doesn't require acclamation to be true)

Each logical step must be Sound (not necessarily Valid, but I think you mean the same thing with that, no worries), and it must relate... its "relevancy" however isn't a part of reasoning.  Relevancy isn't always clear, its a fuddled and hard to nail down piece of jello--sometimes only evident after things come full circle.  That's where a certain amount of trust comes in to the speaker.

My point was perfectly related to my argument and my intentions... that establishing that particular iota of rational truth was going to be necessary if we were going to talk intelligently about cases in the more subjective derivatives of it.  So, in a nutshell and a more layman way, if we couldn't agree on what is and isn't true, we weren't going to make a lot of headway and progress when we started talking about truths.

I don't have as much faith as Flannel that it's possible to achieve objectivity,

Its possible... its just not usually pleasant if done right--to be objective, you have to take the premises step by step and abide by the conclusion; I think most-times we want to merely justify our conclusions with suitable premises.  That's just not the same.

For instance, I have no idea whether its pragmatically possible to have the same experience with a different game... but unless I'm going to back-end my judgement into some premises that kinda justify it, I have to go step by step (start with what's possible) and explore what's true and not, if I'm going to be loyal to the idea that I'm doing it in an objective fashion. 

Otherwise, we're just bleating.

(I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, actually, at this point)
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #133 on: December 10, 2008, 07:57:57 PM »
No, no, I don't think we're disagreeing. You seem to favour rationalism/empiricism and I'm more about subjectivity. I think you point out something very important here, though: it's not necessary to have a fully-formed claim in order take part in an exploratory discussion. This doesn't have to be thesis-vs-antithesis. In fact, we're better off if it's not. When someone makes an assertion, I'm not required to either agree or supply an opposing assertion. That would just be false dilemma writ large. I mean, this isn't intellectual Thunder Dome: Two Theses Enter, One Thesis Leaves.

It's more useful, more congenial, and just plain easier to draw reasonable conclusions from what we know than to jump to a conclusion and then rationalise it after the fact. This conversation feels (to me, speaking subjectively) like rationalising after the fact based on a preoccupation with the pre-eminence of "system" in RPGs.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #134 on: December 10, 2008, 08:09:41 PM »
I mean, this isn't intellectual Thunder Dome: Two Theses Enter, One Thesis Leaves.

That would be awesome, hoss.  But, no, it wouldn't be useful.

Quote
It's more useful, more congenial, and just plain easier to draw reasonable conclusions from what we know than to jump to a conclusion and then rationalise it after the fact. This conversation feels (to me, speaking subjectively) like rationalising after the fact based on a preoccupation with the pre-eminence of "system" in RPGs.

Y'know, I kinda thought I was a "system" kind of guy... and then I got involved in running LARPs for a few years.  It was the most fun I, or any of my friends or players, had ever had Gaming (hand to God, it was the standard to which all other games and genres and recreations got compared to, still do).  And when I look back at those times?

It was the shoddiest, spit-and-chicken-wire, changing-the-rules-on-the-fly, take-what-works-and-abandon-what-doesn't thing I've ever done.  Moves too fast, too many players (four dozen plus), too many independant actions and storylines, too many little things to be loyal to a rulebook for...

...and it worked.  I had a rules-lawyer buddy as my Assistant--the voice of "by the book" reason, second guessing me (he ended up my proper Lawyer, too, true story) and keeping pace.

And I kinda sat back and thought about that, after it was over (couple years of game) and thought "y'know... the book wasn't written that well, the system was flawed as a mofo, the fluff was straight out of the Table Top version of Vampire, I changed half the book and made up my own hoodoo, I used FIAT for so many things, and move the goalposts almost weekly... but what made that game memorable?  And what made it an experience worth having?  It could have been any rulebook, just about (any other system would have been just as edited and revised and picked apart for free flow of situation), but it was the people that mattered, and the story that mattered, and the scenery.

At that point, I kinda gave rulebooks the finger. 

. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #135 on: December 10, 2008, 08:21:38 PM »
I hear ya, man. I think I can honestly say, as a totally subjective thing, that a shitty system and good friends beats an awesome system and total strangers, every time.

flannel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • Logician
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #136 on: December 10, 2008, 08:45:58 PM »
I hear ya, man. I think I can honestly say, as a totally subjective thing, that a shitty system and good friends beats an awesome system and total strangers, every time.

Have you ever played with strangers?  Like "only guy you know at the table"?

I confess, I have not.  Oh, there's the occasional merging of a new gaming group with remnants of an old one--but stark new?  Never done that.  I think that its fair to say I got into gaming because I liked what we did when we hung out, not out of any love for the game itself (though I enjoyed it, as a stand alone).

I wonder if there's a category of gamer for that under one of these hard gaming theories?
. . .. ... .....
*wink*

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #137 on: December 10, 2008, 08:55:07 PM »
Thank you for the perspective shot Flannel, you've reminded me once again that we have to qualify our statements, or they lose all meaning.

I wasn't even thinking about LARPing!  I haven't LARPed in years, but I generally had fun when I did it.  The funny thing about it though is that I never had as much fun as I thought I should be.  The reason for it is because when you're LARPing, you have a system, without a doubt - traits, powers, rock-paper-scissors, all of that - but the REAL resolution mechanic for LARPing is good old fashion face to face social communication, and I've never been good at it.  I always felt a little bit powerless, because I knew that no matter what I did, I'd never be the guy at the middle of the conspiracy, or the guy driving a major plotline, or the center of anything, because I just wasn't comfortable socializing.  I'm still not, to be honest.

So, having said that, let me put some brackets on my previous comments.  

If the experience you're talking about is "Getting together with my good friends and gaming", then the salient parts of that experience can probably happen just fine no matter what system you're playing, be it a board game or a serious RPG.

But if the experience you're talking about, and it's what I've been referencing all along, is "Playing the game", which includes player interaction at the table, the story that you are creating together, and the actions that you take both in and out of character, then I think that System is a very important factor in that experience, and you aren't going to get the same experience doing it with different systems.
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #138 on: December 10, 2008, 08:59:47 PM »
I hear ya, man. I think I can honestly say, as a totally subjective thing, that a shitty system and good friends beats an awesome system and total strangers, every time.

Have you ever played with strangers?  Like "only guy you know at the table"?

I confess, I have not.  Oh, there's the occasional merging of a new gaming group with remnants of an old one--but stark new?  Never done that.  I think that its fair to say I got into gaming because I liked what we did when we hung out, not out of any love for the game itself (though I enjoyed it, as a stand alone).

I wonder if there's a category of gamer for that under one of these hard gaming theories?

I've gamed with complete strangers plenty of times.  Usually it happens at conventions.  In fact, I'd say that some of my most amazing experiences gaming have come from gaming with strangers at conventions.

When I'm gaming with good friends, it's usually fun but there's never a complete focus on the game, because we're all bullshitting around, or someone has to go feed the dogs, or whatever.  Also, we tend to fall into ruts over time. 

With total strangers at a con, it's different.  Not only are you all there to game with no distractions, but for me personally I lose a little bit of inhibitions and role play better than I ever do at home.  Maybe it's the transient nature of the game, or the fact that I don't have to worry about the status quo of a campaign, but I role play my ass off at cons.  It's amazing.
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: If I am already having fun, why should I change?
« Reply #139 on: December 10, 2008, 09:58:27 PM »
In retrospect, I should have stated that very differently. What I should have said was that a shitty system and good friends beats a wonderful system and a bunch of assholes. No quality of system can make up for it if the people you're playing with are small-minded, selfish, butt-wipes. And this principle has been pointed out to me, quite rightly, once or twice. A lot of practises that I might blame on a certain play-style or a game philosophy actually has a lot more to do with the people in question asking like jerks than on the styles/philosophies themselves. And by the same token, conciliatory adults can find ways to compromise on style/philosophy/rule differences such that each can have a decent gaming experience.