|
Grex > Rpg > #37: Gaming "Did You Know?"s | |
|
| Author |
Message |
bjorn
|
|
Gaming "Did You Know?"s
| 
Aug 29 19:11 UTC 1998 |
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. |
cloud
|
|
response 1 of 32:
|
Sep 7 02:52 UTC 1998 |
trivia for gaming geeks? Yowza.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 2 of 32:
|
Sep 23 15:27 UTC 1998 |
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.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 3 of 32:
|
Oct 7 16:02 UTC 1998 |
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).
|
phenix
|
|
response 4 of 32:
|
Oct 7 19:37 UTC 1998 |
why?
|
bjorn
|
|
response 5 of 32:
|
Oct 8 05:07 UTC 1998 |
Because response #3 is clear-cut, no two ways about it, cheating.
|
mneme
|
|
response 6 of 32:
|
Oct 8 19:55 UTC 1998 |
There's no such thing as cheating in a RPG, at least not as long as it's
consentual with the other players.
|
lowtech
|
|
response 7 of 32:
|
Feb 12 23:28 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
phenix
|
|
response 8 of 32:
|
Feb 13 07:46 UTC 1999 |
it's not really cheeting if the gm does it
|
mneme
|
|
response 9 of 32:
|
Mar 2 04:27 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
lumen
|
|
response 10 of 32:
|
Aug 11 19:04 UTC 1999 |
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
|
lumen
|
|
response 11 of 32:
|
Aug 11 19:06 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
mneme
|
|
response 12 of 32:
|
Aug 28 00:12 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
lumen
|
|
response 13 of 32:
|
Sep 29 22:56 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
mneme
|
|
response 14 of 32:
|
Oct 11 04:11 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
lumen
|
|
response 15 of 32:
|
Oct 21 00:01 UTC 1999 |
right. I guess I take that as a given. Why would I game if I didn't
feel that effect?
|
mneme
|
|
response 16 of 32:
|
Nov 1 22:58 UTC 1999 |
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".
|
lumen
|
|
response 17 of 32:
|
Nov 4 00:39 UTC 1999 |
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."
|
lumen
|
|
response 18 of 32:
|
Nov 4 00:44 UTC 1999 |
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.
|
phenix
|
|
response 19 of 32:
|
Nov 5 04:42 UTC 1999 |
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
|
mneme
|
|
response 20 of 32:
|
Nov 22 04:07 UTC 1999 |
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).
|