Did you know: The idea of weapon familiarity based on a weapon a character
is proficient in in AD&D came from the Player's Handbook and not the Player's
Option books?

Get anymore gaming did you knows?  post 'em here.

32 responses total.

trivia for gaming geeks?  Yowza.

Yea I guess so.  Here's another one - The chance of psionic wild talents is
an arbitrary percentile roll with miniscule adjustments based on race,
abilities, and class in AD&D, in Alternity it's a simple choice at the expense
of some skill points, yet both game systems are done by TSR.

AD&D doesn't give enough skills is a common complaint I hear.  Here's my idea,
partially follow Alternity conversion to buy skills for your character's
level, then switch back to AD&D (I'm sure WotC:TSR would HATE to read this).

why?

Because response #3 is clear-cut, no two ways about it, cheating.

There's no such thing as cheating in a RPG, at least not as long as it's 
consentual with the other players.

but whats the chance of getting all players to agree on everything sometimes
the dm has to make a choice and he could cheat, but players can cheat by
changing the character sheet and stuff like that.  but i think thats dm's
cheat more than all the players put together though.

it's not really cheeting if the gm does it

Consensual means the players know, that, as a matter of course, the GM is 
free to change the background, story, individual dice rolls, and otherwise
manipulate the game behind the scenes, as long as what reaches the players
appears unmarred (and even that last proviso doesn't apply when all
participants decide that they don't like the way that something played out).
It doesn't require knowledge, just foreknowledge.  Invalid cheating is when
the GM makes a statement about what's going on, and then reverses him or
herself for no in-game reason, manipulating the players into making
out-of-character decisions.  
        But failing that, anything goes.

Power gamer syndrome.  YYYEEEEECCCCCHHHH!

I prefer to get into the characters-- advancement is a side benefit.

I've played improv with my wife where we totally made up the game 
spontaneously as we went.  No dice, no rules per se, just ebb and flow 
role-playing.

As far as playing within an established system-- there are ways to deal 
with power gamers-- GMs can create games that tend to disinvolve them, 
(so essentially, power gamers find they contribute next to nothing), the 
all-powerful anvil on the head, and GAKing particularly abusive 
cheaters.

Myself, I like White Wolf-- it's easy to power play, but so much more 
fun to develop char

characters.  Whoops.  In ideal situations, I love to play with people 
who have GM'd-- if I use their constructs in a world, I can have them 
take over their created NPCs as needed; and GMs generally get into 
role-playing more.                 

I've not found that being a GM makes someone a better roleplayer
[any more than more roleplaying does] -- certainly, better roleplayers
make better GMs.  
        My solution to power gaming is thus: if people want power, let 'em 
have it, as long as it doesn't decrease the GM's ability to run a game.  
What they can't monopolize is the real power -- influence in the story, and
that player power as much as it is character power.  -That- the GM needs to
tightly control enough that all players get at least as much influence as they
want.

well, okay-- I'll concede that.  But eventually, everything should 
balance out.  I guess the idea is to make sure the PCs perceive 
themselves as powerful.

Influential, yes, absolutely.  They must feel that they had an effect, and
that effect was something that wouldn't have been there if they hadn't been
playing in  the game.

right.  I guess I take that as a given.  Why would I game if I didn't 
feel that effect?

Well, yeah; the problem is that a lot of gamers -don't- take it as a given,
looking more for simulation or competition or something.  I don't really get
party-oriented 10 player games (though I've been in 10 player character
oriented games), nor "railroading", nor "if the rules/dice say so, it must
happen, however odious".

over-zealous competitors, or "power gamers," piss me off to no end-- I 
figure action is just a *part* of the game.

Party-oriented 10 player games?  Don't think I've heard of them.  I do 
know that gaming in large groups gets to be troublesome, but I have 
noted that if the game has a bit of a mercenary feel, or is a merc-
styled game, and one PC or two can be clear leaders, it is easier.

What's railroading?

Oh yes.  The problem of adhering to the rules/dice too strictly.  All 
of my GMs (and game manuals) taught me that the rules and the dice were 
just tools-- the GM *always* has the power to fudge something a little, 
or disregard a technicality to preserve the integrity of the 
storyline.  If you can do something that will be more interesting for 
your players, and keep the story exciting, it is perfectly *okay* to 
bend the rules, or disregard the dice.  One GM of mine called it "GM's 
Rule of Thumb."

I've also found that gamers seem to grow better with age.  I know that 
some teenagers are guilty of these behaviors when they start out, and I 
know quite a few of them like to hold on to them as long as they can, 
but they start to role-play more as they get older.

I've gamed with a lot of different people.  When I moved away from my 
hometown for further undergrad studies, I lost contact with a lot of 
the people I'd gamed with-- but then I got married and just connected 
with all the gaming friends my wife had.  They are either my age or her 
age (she's 30 but doesn't look it) and have had a lot of experience.

i really ahve to say it depends on the genre
the whole point of cyberpunk is that life is cheap, so in games like 
shadowrun or gurps cyberpunk(in which you're SUPPOSED to have 2 or three
backup characters ready) death should be an ever present threat,
and EASY to come by.
in heavy gear, when running cinimatic style on the other hand,m death should
be a major milestone, the death of a pc should be clear and concicse reasons
and should be a major plot point.
<shrug>
it all depends on the style of game.
personally, it relaly depends on the game for my personal preference/style
when i'm running something like conspiracy X or a grunt trooper heavy
gear game, you best be prepaired to loose a character when you get into
combat. 
however, i've found that rules lawyers gms who follow all the rules to the 
letter usually plan an adventure out, and if the pc's get a good roll, or 
slip past the obsticles without a problemso be it.
my .02 newyen

In referse order...
No, I have to disagree with you phenix -- the way to play a "life is cheap"
game is to make death plentiful and nasty, but for anything with -any- decent
characterization, plot, and story you have to avoid random PC death.  Period.
Don't use the game's rules as inspiration, or worse yet, it's advice, except
where it bears out -- use the source (whiuch is so different from the -game-
Cyberpunk, and -so- much better it ain't even funny).  As Handy says: "Read
a book!"
        And on the same token, while one should be able to advance the plot
by being smart, one -shouldn't- be able to avoid having plot at all -- the
players are just as responsible for making the game work well as the GM is;
they aren't competitors with either eachother or the GM.

Lumen: Definately agreed on many gamers getting better as they get older. 
On the other hand, I've seen some pretty good gamers who were pretty young,
and gamers who never really -wanted- to get better.

 It's largely the "one or two leaders" bit I have a problem with -- I don't
like the concepts involved with assuming that level of uniformity amongh a
roleplaying group -- essentially, if you've got leaders, you've got a
party=-oriented group. rather than a character oriented group, where most of
the action takes place in dialogue between two or three characters.  IMO, the
ideal number of players for a character-oriented game is 3 or 4; 6 is getting
big, while 10 means that the players who don't talk much are -going- to get
shut out of the action (whether by officially appointed leaders or by
loudmouths who want to get their own share of the limelight), unless you've
got a -really- good GM who can split the party into 3 or four groups and run
what is essentially several parallel games (which also requires a GM who is
willing to trust players to separate character and player knowledge).

you assume that the games i run HAVE plots.
i'm a firm beliver in i guess "stream of conciousness"
i write out the world, and set things in motion.
no pre-determined ending
no final fantasy style plot hammer.
the npc's make rolls exactly like the players and can be interupted,
talked to or just killed.
it's total free form and the only way players can REALLY make a differnce in
a world, aside from totally screwing the pooch.
it's why i hate modules.
take for instance the deadlands game we're in, the gm is runing us through
basiclaly the meat grinder, designed to make characters into, well
heroes, if you survive you earn your wings so to speak.
there's this really bitch ass hero, she's as good as the kille rof heroes.
yes, there's a scene, where we have some of the fastest people in the wild
west, yet we don't even get a roll to stop the action.
in order for the plot to work SHE MUST DIE
if we'd been allowed to act we probly woulda saved her, as we were gonna
cold cock her and SNEAK into a room, instead of her barging in, but nope.
otherwise there's no conflict, happy ending.
basically, you can't really have a plot becuase players are going to blow
it to hell, you can set up a situation and then let it run,
like sim life

You misinterpret the word "plot"  A plot doesn't mean that there as a GM
imposed story; or worse, a game-designer imposed story.  If you've got
crap where, as often happens in Pinnacle, WW, and AEG products (as
good as they sometimes are), large parts of the plot are
Predetermined, desgined by God and Mark Rein.Hagen, (or whoever the
designer is, let him be as good as Gred Stoltze or as bad as the worst
of the hacks) that ain't "plot", and it damned well ain't
story-oriented roleplaying; that's railroading, plain 'n simple,
the walking dead zombie evil cousin of true roleplaying.  
    Now, true story oriented gaming ain't that, never was, never shall
be, no matter how many trademark symbols Certain Parties put after
appropriate words.  Story-oriented gaming ain't about what you start
with -- it's about what you end up with.  If after playing a few
games, what you've got is a jumbled mess, close as you can get to real
life crossed with a power-mad fantasy, well, have fun, and I hope your
reading material is more sophisticated than your games.  On the other
hand, if what you end with is something that was never existent before
but is still worth retelling and reliving, giving satisfaction not
just to the players-as-gamers but to the players-as-audience, and
is possibly even worth retelling to a second-generation audience,
you've reached a state devoutly to be wished, where the players ain't
just playing a game, but performing and act of creation.
     Now, if that's not the meatballs you want on your pizza, don't
let me rain on your parade; after all, to consistently get a story
worth remembering, you've got to warp probability, giving more power
into the hands of the players and GM, and less into the ever-random
dice/cards (which end up taking on the roll of benign but balmy
advisors, looked on as a source of advice, but never unquestionable).
But it's worth it.
    At least, that's the gospel according to YT, and one true
story-telling game is worth a hundred of the other sort.  But don't
take my word on it.

ok, but if you want to tell a story, that's fine, but the best stories
are those that are true.
and to be true it's got to face all the perils of NOT being a good story
the second point is that the majority of these games
are about heroes.
there are lots of definitions about heros but almost all of them state there
MUST be some jepardy.
it must be possible, if not probible that doing the things the character does
it SHOULD/COULD kill them.
permanantly
you're not a hero if you dont' risk anything, you're just some schmo doing
his job.
you're a hero if you run into a burning building to save somone with a very
real risk to one's self.
it's jsut another "yawn" "super-hero" if you run in ther eimmune to flame.
woopidy do
no danger, no threat = no hero.
just another guy going about his buisness with no risk

resp:20  Yeah, Josh, I think you articulated it well, and much better 
than I had ever thought of it.  I think the distinction between a party 
and a character game is a good one, and by experience from some of the 
games I've played in, it's easy to get shut out if your GM isn't able 
to make this distinction.

Phenix: Every instinct i have is telling me to flame you for posting an 
incredibly badly thought out piece of shit.  But since I don't have time
(and I hit most of your points in my original essay), sufice it to say that
I don't -want- to live in a fantasy world, just like our own; I want to live
through stories, which is an entirely different thing.  And stories aren't
real; they're artificial in ways reality can't be, and paridoxically,  more
beleivable and sensical than reality every can be.
        But go forth, hero, and roll your dice, not able to stomach the
alternative, but knowing only that it must be stopped.

        Lumen: Thanks!  Don't forget the distinction between "my character does
things" and "I do things!" -- neither covers for the other, so a game can be
unsatisfying if as a player you spend all your time helping other players with
strategy, but don't get to play, or it can be unsatisfying if your character
wanders around and kills a lot of thing (but you're in a style of party where
this involves almost no input of your own).

<shrug> then why have the dice? the differnce between a game and a play
is that in a game it's possible for things not to go the way they're
supposed to.
as to you're little superiority complex, mayhaps you should look up the
definition of a hero.
the simple fact is if you want stories you might as well skip the gm, 
and the rules, and just write a group story.

phenix: you wanna be a hero, go ahead.   I want to be a gamer.  And
occasionally an artist.  Hero?  The stakes ain't high enough in gaming to let
me (or you, or anyone) be one when gaming.
        And the reason I'm ragging on your sorry little ass (and from
discussion, it is) is 'cause you aren't willing to just defend your (valid
and enjoyable) form of gaming, but want to discredit the rest of us.  But when
you get down to it, There's More than One Way to Do it, and more importantly,
there's more than one reason.  
        You want to be subject to implacable fate?  That's your poison; me,
I rule the dice (rather than the other way 'round), and let my character be
the hero (or anti-hero, or heroic villain, or black-hearted menace), while
I get on with my life.
        The dice?  They're the hand of fate, pushing things in ways that we
didn't expect, providing the raw wool and wheft that we, as human beings and
creators can turn into a tapestry of our own design.  Likewise the cards, or
any other random system, or even the various plans of the players before they
sit down a the gaming table.  
        But let them rule you, and you're in for a world of hurt (not to
mention some pointless games).

resp:25  That's true.  There has to be a distinction between what you do 
in the storyline, and what you are planning to do.  Sometimes we have to 
remind each other when our character is speaking/acting and when we 
ourselves are speaking/acting.

resp:26 resp:27 Geez, Greg-- I think Josh is just pointing out that the
 dice are a tool.  I'll admit I'm a bit of a White Wolf fan, and so I  share
his bias of gaming as taking part in a good story.  I've noticed a  couple of
things from my experience, and my research (quite a few WW  rulebooks have
articles on the subject, even)

the dice do NOT have the final say-so.  That's totally up to the 
DM/GM/Storyteller.  If a dice roll is going to interrupt the flow of a 
story, the GM always has the right to ignore the dice and allow things 
to go for an entertaining story.

Why an entertaining story?  Your players are meant to have fun.  That's 
the purpose of the whole game, right?  That leads to other points--

A good GM will let the players run quite a bit of the story.  They make 
their actions, and the GM adjusts the story accordingly.  I know you 
can't force PCs to follow a particular storyline, and yes, that's why I 
don't favor modules (never used 'em).  I have heard horror stories of 
people doing things that just royally fuck over any direction of a 
module.  Plus, they keep you on your toes this way, and it's easier to 
learn what the PCs are about and what kinds of stories will work for 
them.

I've done diceless role-playing before with my wife and my friend who 
has been showing me the ropes to be a good Storyteller.  It's possible, 
but you have to have players who trust you well and are willing to make 
structure of their own.  We also accepted that there would be a 
considerable amount of flux in the spontaneous imagination we were 
acting out.

We have to remember that the games we play came from wargames-- fantasy 
wargames, in particular.  The only reason that dice remained in RPG's 
was there had to be *some* random element, something we would rely on 
that was unbiased.  You can argue with people, but you can't argue with 
dice so much.

I appeal to Gary Gygaxx, since he more or less marked a point in the 
evolution of wargames to RPG's with D&D.  I will admit that his was an 
era when the dice were *heavily* relied upon-- the whole existence of 
multisided dice showed that.  D&D and 1st ed. AD&D showed pretty heavy 
influences of the old wargames-- maps were used, and many people still 
used pewter figurines to show movement.  Most adventures were calculated 
with the dice-- encounters, monster hp, characteristics of valuable 
items, weapons, and artifacts, etc.

There was a big change in 2nd ed.  Yup, this was when we started moving 
towards a more storyline oriented game.  Take a look at what has come 
out since, and the trend has followed that direction.

There is NOTHING wrong with making your game from dice.  It seemed 
Gygaxx really micromanaged the D&D sometimes-- you could create 
societies, cities, etc.-- and he did get incredibly detailed.

All Josh is saying is that he likes to play with a storyline in mind.  
This doesn't mean that the dice have to be totally disregarded.  It *is* 
just a different sort of play, and it is the sort of play that is more 
or less in vogue right now.  Dice get to be a crutch for those of us who 
like to play that way-- we like the opportunity to think a lot, and to 
be free to do so without the GM cramming something down our throats that 
we don't want because "the rules/dice say so."

I mean, c'mon, I'll beat this horse way past the point that it dies 
because, DAMN it, even game manufacturers like to play this way, and 
they've said so in their rule books.

We aren't knocking you-- so stop knocking us.

Jon: Got a few quibles, but basically, right-on.

Quibles:  D&D 2nd was following an existing (and ongoing) trend, not creating
a new one (except in terms of published D&D materia
        I'm referring largely to keeping the ending (created by the game
session) storyline in mind, rather than keeping a pre-existing story-line in
mind.
        But otherwise, nicely, truthfully, and tactfully said.

hrm, gotcha.

Yes, you're right-- 2nd ed. was a result of an evolving trend, and I 
should have mentioned that.  I forgot to say that although dungeons had 
become the focus of 1st ed., D&D had begun more wilderness based.  I'm 
guessing there were plenty of gamers that brought this about, but the 
fact that Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms had existed in hiding about 
around this time, I'm sure the creators had it in mind, too.

Quibble #2: Right; that was what I was trying to say.  Most modules 
*don't* work, and a pre-fabricated storyline doesn't work, either.  The 
story is largely created by the session.  I'll agree with that.  But 
what I did find helpful was to have a couple of possibilities-- i.e. 
story fragments and ideas-- in mind to give the game somewhat of a 
drive.

Interesting footnote to this discussion:  I was talking recently to a
quasi-professional storyteller (in the normal sense of the word, not the
euphemism-for-dungeon-master sense of the word), and she said that's how she
tends to plan out her stories.  For each story in her repertoire, she keeps
in mind a few story fragments and ideas that work well, but the path between
those fragments will be a little different each time.  She says it makes the
stories more enjoyable to tell - I imagine it also makes them more difficult,
at least initially.  But it also has the side effect of letting her tailor
the story to her audience. 

And how much more important to be able to tailor the story to your audience
when your "audience" is made up of characters in the story who can step in
and throw things off-course at a moment's notice?

Sounds cool; I do a bit of storytelling myself, on occasion, but I usually
tell more "authentic" stories, and only rarely rework on a moment's notice.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss